It's not perfectly clear, but from the sound of this article, it looks as if Netscape will be able to, at the flick of a switch, dynamically alternate between embedding either the MSHTML ActiveX control or the Gecko rendering engine within the viewport of it's browser. They were quick to admit that this was obviously a windows-only solution, and it seems like the marketing spin AOL is taking is that it'll provide the user with the "best of both worlds" or some crap like that.

Well, so let's think about this for a minute. The average internet surfer on windows sticks with the one web browser that comes with their PC, IE. Those who don't use IE are savvy enough to know that there are other options and needs no guidance to take advantage of them. However, these savvy users compose of the minority, and not even all of them can ditch IE completely because of websites that are designed to only work well on IE (try uploading 200 photos to shutterfly or see if you can sanely browse the MSDN library with FireFox). Since the savvy users know that not everyone can completely move away from IE without finding alternatives to all these IE-only services, they're hardpressed to go to great lengths to convince other people into using browsers like FireFox (unless they truly enjoy becoming a 24/7 tech support person for all their friends and families, of course).

Now then, what is it that Netscape thinks they're doing? Well, it's not too difficult to imagine the suits rubbing their hands and saying that all they care about is that they somehow get people to use Netscape as their default browser, and hit netscape.com whenever they open it up. Sure, but how? Well, the take on their strategy seems similar to the Victoria's Secret's lovely tag line; it's you, only better. They're trying to present their product as something that doesn't bring about potentially disruptive changes to the daily lives of average internet surfers, whilst providing them with benefits that should be considered as substantial as a clevage enhancement. They know that they don't have much chance of convincing somebody who's using IE to swtich to a browser that may break on websites they routinely visit. So now they can say, "Oh, just think of it as... uhm... IE 7!" Most surfers could care less what rendering engine they're using or how standards compliant their browser is, so long as the site they visit works, and the browser provides them with the features they need for a pleasant surfing time in an intuitive and responsive manner. If AOL really wants to take away IE's marketshare, they should probably do some intensive research to keep up-to-date on websites that only work well on IE and devise a scheme to automatically switch to the MSHTML control when visiting those sites and default to Gecko otherwise. (No, it's not going to be easy, but taking away marketshare never was) One could also think of a case where if a page tries to load an activeX control and fails, it will then go ahead and ask the user if they want to try and "recover" from the error and then try it again with the MSHTML control. It could get slightly weird, as this would mean inconsistent browsing experience on other plaforms such as Linux and Macintosh, but if they're really serious about taking away marketshare from Microsoft, this kind of bold move will go a long way.

Then, for a moment, let's assume that they did take a bold step into taking advantage of this hybrid architecture. So what? That doesn't mean Netscape will now automagically prop up on your desktop, right? So initially, the only marketshare they're going to be able to get is Netscape users who are upgrading (yeah, all 1.2% of them), web developers who find it useful as a development tool (most of which may well already be non-IE users), and some FireFox users who, right now, constantly have both browsers open because they frequent websites that require IE and just can't take it anymore. And even this is a big "IF", in that if the performance and usability of the next Netscape sucks as much as the previous one, it'll just tank anyway. Wait, then did that really do much damage to the IE marketshare? It sure doesn't look like it. Then how the hell is Netscape going to compete? One word: partnership.

To be quite frank, unless the new version of Netscape is leaps and bounds better than FireFox in terms of usability, it's doubtful that they can take away much of FireFox's marketshare. A good chunk of FireFox enthusiasts who are web standards purists will cry foul over how Netscape is just muddying the water by breathing new life into the outdated version of IE and its beloved quirks mode. Other FireFox users will simply see no motivation to switch. Now you can argue that we're looking at the wrong slice of the pie, and that the average IE userbase is the, you know, bigger piece of the pie. Fine then, let's say you're one of the novice Dell PC users using MSN Explorer, a glorified IE that happens to be the default browser on Dell machines, on a daily basis, and you're more or less content with it. You do hear some news about security issues with some sort of a, er... hyperactive control on X or what not, but they're all greek to you. What incentives do you have to abandon your trustworthy explorer for Netscape on your own? Not much really... Although Dell comes installed with Netscape, if the miniscule size of Netscape userbase is any proof, it is highly doubtful that many actually switch their default from MSN Explorer to Netscape. However, what FireFox doesn't have, but Netscape does, is corporate power, namely AOL. Now AOL is going to have to weave its corporate muscles, start an ad campaign, word of mouth viral marketing, whatever and figure out a way to push Netcape as the default browser on newly build PCs by partnering with Dell and other vendors with some misleading marketing blurbs that make it sound as if it's IE 7.

If this new offering is indeed solid in terms of usability and performance, Netscape just might have built a trojan horse, and they've got some serious work to do to convince the citizens of Troy to let them deliver the goods. Oh, yeah, and let's just hope that AOL starts to believe in eating its own dog food.

Just look at this and tell me you don't see the possibilities. As you can see, I'm quite excited, but being a member of the late majority when it comes to buying game consoles/handhelds, it'll be another year or so before I actually purchase one for myself...

So, speaking of the late majority, there seems to be lots of arguments over whether backward compatiliby is an overrated feature and how the uber specs of the PSP is going to crush the DS. As for the former, I think that really depends on how great you want the product to be in terms of grabbing market share. This feature can be mapped onto some of the segments described in the technology adoption life cycle for better analysis. And for the latter, that's what some people in the auto industry thought,too , until they smartened up and realized that just because the engine produces more horsepower per liter, it doesn't make the car more enticing to the masses than the competitors'.

For early adopters and enthusiasts, it doesn't matter at all whether a console is backward compatible or not. Some will buy them simply because they're the newest and the greatest, but for most of this segment the deciding factor will be whether or not it has support from their favorite game development houses. If that's hard to believe, then just find out how many people went out of their way to buy a Playstation just because Squaresoft had announced its exclusive release of the Final Fantasy series on the platform, or how many bought the Xbox just because of Halo. It's no secret that the games sell the consoles, and not the other way around.

While it's true that brand name development house suport usually goes hand in hand with cool hardware features, those cool features don't necessarily equate to more memory, faster cpu, and or larger screen real estate. Many game development houses that want to make truly unique titles tend to bank heavily on the storyline, gameplay or the user interface. That means if a platform has the features that will help them fulfil those goals, they will make games for it (sure, developers may bitch and gripe incessantly about the miniscule amount of video memory, but developers will bitch and gripe no matter what ^.~ ). Having said that, it cannot be ignored how big of a user base, either existing or projected to exist, can be associated with any particular platform. That is especially true for big game houses that don't take risks or have painted themselves into the corner of the innovator's dilemma.

Yes, stunning visuals are important, but if visuals become the driving part of the game, then those games are only going to be able to garner a relatively small marketshare and will most likely fail to attract the majority of early majors ( of course, that's not to say that the game itself would have necessarily failed ). Though I'm willing to take a step back and say that a certain visual style is more appealing to the masses than others ( meaning that it may actually play a big role ), that is not to say that the early majors will be swayed by whether the technology being used is able to render multi-billion polygons in real time or use highly sophisticated texturing pipelines; platforms with games that provide a fun and immersive experience in a visual style that the gamers relate best to will be adopted by the early majority.

It isn't until we start talking about the late majority and the laggards that backward compatibility starts to matter. Late majorities tend to be against dicontinous technology advancements, so in order for the late majority to buy into a new game platform, they'll weigh in factors such as whether they'd be able to buy used games for cheap, rent games from a mainstream store or perhaps borrow some games from their friends hoping that those friends won't miss the games too much. Backward compatibility clearly helps make all of the above possible due mostly to the effect of generation gap caused immediately upon the introduction of the new generation platform. So we can see how backward compatibility can help convince this segment to adopt a new generation video game platform. Sometimes, it's quite possible that the late majority will end up morphing into early majorities. Think about someone who has yet to plunge into a video game platform as they've been just passively scoping out the water, unsure of what to buy. Before they know it, the new gen platform comes out, and now they are faced with the choice of buying either the previous gen platform for cheap or buying the new one at a premium. While the stubborn late majorities may go for the used one, there's a distinct possibility that some of them will morph into early majorities for the new gen platform because they will justify their purchase with the large used game software base ( and of course the devil on the left shoulder telling them how cool they'd look with the latest and greatest gadget =P )

With all the market analysis aside, one other thing I believe people should realize is that when creative professionals are given constraints, they are forced to crank up their creative engine and show their true brilliance. I personally believe that creative professionals that work for the mainstream market should constantly be put in various levels of contraints to really bring out interesting experiences to the gamers. If we spoil ourselves with moore's law, we start seeing games that are so blindsighted by the advancements in technology that they lose track of what it is they're trying to achieve. For example, are we developing a 3d engine or are we trying to create a fun and immersive interaction experience? Of course this full circles back to games selling the hardware.

Nintendo DS has plenty of horsepower for a handheld, and on top of that it provides what no other handhelds in the market does in terms of user interface possibilities, not to mention enough connectivity options (oh, and I'll just let the long battery life feature slide cuz that should be a no-brainer requirement unless you're Sony). If I were a game developer I'd be all over it losing sleep on how best to take advantage of them, not on whether enough units are going to be sold. Mark my words guys, the DS in Nintendo DS is an acronym for "Da Shit!" =)