I think Google is more likely to concentrate on apps (like gmail) that don’t require any download or installation. It’s a no-mess, no-fuss sort of software experience. It’s also a no-commitment experience - it’s akin to using a web site.

For google to have their own version of mozilla isn’t really helpful to them in a market where the majority of people still use IE. Every google app will have to be IE-compatible for the foreseeable future.

Remember that Netscape’s original vision was for the browser to become the new platform - the new middleware - thus rendering Windows irrelevant. Microsoft thought they had crushed that by crushing Netscape, but google is now threatening to deliver on Netscape’s vision. Mozilla plays an important role in that it’s existence as an alternative prevents Microsoft from undermining the “platformish” aspects of IE - doing so would risk people switching to Mozilla. Microsoft aren’t keen to upgrade IE and pump it full of features because to do so actually helps competitors like google.

It’s a delicately balanced game at the moment.

That’s not what I remember. I remember that Netscape wanted to produce a set of tools and applications, such as email, HTML editor, media player, and so on. That is not quite the same thing as a new layer, or middleware.

There was something called SuiteSpot that I think was server software meant to work as a new layer, but I’m not sure it was meant to be a new platform to literally replace Windows by riding on top of it. Instead, I think that it was meant to be tightly integrated with Windows. That’s not quite the same thing. Perhaps I am splitting hairs? Either way, driptray, you make some good points.

Interesting!

Microsoft referred to this as “sucking the whole world through a straw”, and then wiped out Netscape by a combination of product bundling and exclusive OEM deals.

The hype has now gone out of client-side java, but Gmail shows how you can get a better app by using javascript and DHTML instead.