[sift this]  Pointcast got around to releasing new product this week with the beta release of Pointcast 2.0.  The pioneer of "push" revamped portions of their user interface to keep with the last advancements in buttonless buttons and smooth scrolling, but the real work Pointcast engineers and marketers implemented isn't immediately obvious.

The Digest has been ripping on Pointcast for months, worrying aloud that a great product was going to get leapfrogged by the likes of Netscape and Microsoft.  Pointcast remains ahead of the game.  While Pointcast engineers weathered the criticism of I.S. managers who didn't appreciate Pointcast's bandwidth hogging capabilities, Pointcast was marketing itself as "the" channel on the Internet.  Shopping itself around to content providers such as CNN, Knight-Ridder, and Wired, Pointcast was justifying its existence by signing up content people cared about.   Netscape had a similar epiphany when it realized that content providers would be willing to big bucks to get on the #1 site on the Web.  Microsoft knew content was the key years ago, but decided to develop proprietary technology to exploit it.  Suddenly, they had a bigger problem on their hands when HTML became the de facto standard, blindsiding Bill Gates and his Blackbird authoring technology.

Other than content, Pointcast has gone to major lengths to solve the other major problem with its original implementation - it was far too popular.  Users didn't realize that the pretty screen saver that they left on their desktop all weekend was sucking up network resources even when they weren't there.  The Sister claimed that late last year H-P was close to banning the application from internal usage because close to half of H-P's Internet traffic was Pointcast related.

2.0 claims to reduce bandwidth suckage by 55%, but trials this week revealed that updates to the Pointcast server took roughly the same amount of time as pre-2.0 versions.  (Doesn't mean they're lying just means it still takes a "long time" to get updates).  Other features include the ability to simply update a single channel, enhanced stock quotes, a clickable ticker application, and support for Microsoft's Channel Definition Format.

Pointcast 2.0 doesn’t dazzle, it doesn’t need to.  With Netscape Netcaster barely out of the gate and Microsoft’s offering still in the land of vapor, Pointcast has addressed bandwidth concerns and broadened it’s content ensuring it a solid lead over competitors.

[rant]   On a sad, related note, Pointcast 2.0 distances itself from Netscape's Navigator first with its support for Microsoft Channel Definition Format, but also by the fact that each version of Pointcast includes an embedded copy of the Internet Explorer.  While it’s likely the Microsoft threw obscene amounts of money to get on Pointcast’s coattails, there exists a fundamental technological reason why Pointcast had to go with Internet Explorer, it’s a well-behaved component.

The original Pointcast was proud.  They knew they had a great idea and they thought they’d take on the world.   That is why early versions of Pointcast contained their own home grown web-browser.  Remember, this is early ’96 when Netscape 3.0 was about reaffirm it’s dominance of the ‘Net and Microsoft was still trying to sell you their proprietary authoring solutions.  Pointcast quickly realized they need to ally themselves with Netscape simply because they were #1.  A ‘Netscape Now’ button was prominently featured on the Pointcast client and their home grown browser quickly vanished.

Time warp to last week when a Pointcast 2.0 beta shows up on my computer.  As part of the installation, I’m provided a choice of web browser: either use ‘Internet Explorer 3.0’ or Netscape (external browser)’.  What the heck is an external browser?  I select Netscape since it’s all I ever use and proceed.   Firing up Pointcast, I start wandering the channels and, out of habit, right click on one of the articles.  A pop-up menu allows me to copy the text, save it as a file, and view the source.   The documents in Pointcast are HTML pages being viewed with an embedded version of Internet Explorer.   And Netscape isn’t capable of this… even Netscape Communicator.

Who cares?  Not your average Internet surfer.  They’ve got their favorite browser and it’s quite likely they’ll stick with it.  The folks who care are developers of Internet based applications.  Like Pointcast, they believe they’ve got a great idea and they don’t want to waste cycles writing a browser since, well, it’s already been done…. twice.  So, they end up licensing a browser from either Netscape or Microsoft.  If the developer is smart, they’re going to want to embed that browser into their application and hide any fact that it isn’t their code.  Microsoft and Netscape don’t care about the visibility – they’ve already got their checks.  Problem is, Netscape is way behind the game in making their their browser embeddable.

In defense of Netscape, one must remember that Microsoft owns the Windows platform.  This makes it relatively easy for them to integrate their browser into the operating system a la Internet Explorer 4.0.  Meanwhile, Netscape valiantly attempts to make their browser look and feel the same no matter which of 10+ platforms you use.  In reality, Netscape is well aware that 85%+ of their market is Windows based, so why aren’t they flooding the market with a lean, mean Windows browser that easily plugs in to any application?

I’ve been pleasantly surprised watching the browser market share between Netscape and Microsoft stabilizes at roughly a 60/30 division.  Netscape remains nimble on their feet in meeting the needs of end users, but a poor component model for their browser looks to dissuade developers from adopting Netscape’s browser.   Bitsifter Rule #3: When developers stop using your product, end-users will eventually follow.