You mean ithe internet without Tim Berners-Lee and the WWW? It’d be probably mail, file share and bulletin board systems. (And Usenet.) And probably fewer people on it and a greater percentage of companies, academics and students.
Certainly many others would have tried to invent something like the web.
HyperCard predated the web browser and had the concept of easy to build pages that linked. Lots of people were working on ways to deliver apps over the Internet.
I think in some alternative timeline we’d still have a lot of interactive content on the Internet somewhat like the web, but probably based on different technology. Maybe more proprietary.
True. Thanks for the info about HyperCard. I just read up on the history of hypertext on wikipedia. And I didn’t know the exact history. I mean the question was, what if the WWW hadn’t been invented and not what if it was invented by somebody else and had a different name and architecture. So I didn’t include that in my answer. It’s certainly a product of its time. People were looking for a way to organize information and publish it on the internet. And Tim Berners-Lee didn’t come up with the whole concept of hypertext. Seems the concept was already there and libraries and people have been indexing and cross-referencing information before. It took someone to come up with the architecture and invent the markup language and the protocol. But it’s not that far fetched. It would probably have been done by somebody else if things had turned out differently.
I sometimes wonder how things were and felt back then. FTP is originally from 1971, TCP/IP was developed during the 70s and early 80s and they switched to the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) in 1983. SMTP (mail) was introduced in 1983, the NNTP (news) specification is from 1986, HTML was proposed in 1989 and the first browser being developed in late 1990, HTTP was introduced in 1991 and SSL was published in 1995. These are still around as of today (in revised, newer versions) and powering our world. There certainly also were precursors, competing and replaced technologies. So a lot of standardization happened especially during the 80s. In the early 1990 home(?) computers and storage got cheaper and more widespread (personal computers have been around since the 70s) and modems faster so more people could join the online services of that time. Other important tech of the early days that didn’t make it to today in their original form probably include UUCP, FidoNet, the whole dial-up BBSes and whatever ran on the ARPANET before the Internet Protocol got invented. But I suppose it was really different back then. Computer systems were big Unix machines and unaffordable to individuals. And a select few universities were connected, initially funded by the department of defense.
there were many ways to use the internet before browsers, applications talked with other applications, people joined BBSs, but you could argue that eventually, you’d like to access text or media in a repeatable manner, you’d like to be able to point to those resources in the least steps possible (some way of universally locate a resource…), those resources will end up being referenced by other resources and you’d eventually end up with the web.
the web is a side-effect of the internet
I was using the Internet before the WWW, and there was already a pretty good ecosystem from nerdy stuff to consumer-usable. Email, Usenet, Gopher, FTP, IRC, were all widely usable.
Gopher especially made a great way to index and search (with WAIS) things on multiple different services, without being a mess of text/hyperlinks/images/sound/video in a hairy ball like the WWW.
Before browsers even existed, there already was the internet. We had social media (NNTP and IRQ), online multi-user games (MUD, et al.), browsing (Gopher) and file hosting (FTP).
I was introduced to the web and the Arena browser with the words “It’s just like Gopher, but with hypertext.”
Gopher is still around, there are even some web gateways to get into it.
Browsers made the Internet usable for the general population. The Internet as we know it would have remained a network for academia, governments and large corporations. Smartphones would not have been developed. Without a reason for everyone’s homes to be connected to a high speed network, TV would remain the remit of cable and satellite broadcasting - no streaming services.
I’m not so sure we wouldn’t end up in a similar place to where we are, just through scattered applications rather than “the web” with the browser as a hub. Someone would dumb down individual services and we end up with apps.
Well, back in the day you’d have a series of different services, usenet, irc, email, and for articles (at the time usually scholarly articles) you could use Gopher or follow certain usenet groups to find FTP sites hosting the docs.
So if we didn’t have a unified web browser, and those technologies advanced at the pace of other similar services, here is how I see it:
Most services would be accessed by discrete apps, one for your email, one for your chat, one for your remote and local documents.
We wouldn’t see the proliferation of siloed services, platforms like Facebook that offer all of these services but only within their subscribers. They just simply wouldn’t be able to compete with the established services or add nuance or extra value.
Discord would also likely have come into existence a lot earlier and unified some of those services, but again if they chose to silo it as they are doing now, they wouldn’t gain market dominance over already existing wide communities.
Without the profit incentive, existing services have no reason to tie their users to their platform or inhibit cross platform interactions.
Streaming services would still come into existence and fragment and silo like they are now, but that’s only because of the cost of providing reliable HD video content isn’t easily dispersed across unsiloed userbases.
Web advertisements would be non-existant but you’d still get spots in podcasts and videos.
Frankly I think it would be a better internet than what we have now.
This is probably a nice “What if” visualization comment I’ve read - at least this hypothetical timeline would have not tarnished under the enshittification as much as we have. But what about stuff like WebGL? Do we download binaries now and execute them in a sandbox, instead of downloading HTML, CSS, Webfonts and bunch of transpiled JS? What about internet cultures like e-sports, and streaming? How would we be viewing simple stuffs like blogs then? Perhaps, through a “blog” command line app, that reads the REST API JSON?
without browsers, I don’t think there would be a need for most of that, as there would be no need to create the visually compelling but ultimately ridiculously overmoduled live documents.
Esports would still exist just like normal sports existed before the internet. Technically esports predates the world wide web as coin op competitions already existed and sometimes even made it into international news.
Again streaming sites would still exist as mentioned due to the high serving costs, and esports could easily be part of their lineup.
How would we be viewing simple stuffs like blogs then?
There is still place for documents on the internet without the WWW. back in the BBS days, we’d download text file magazines to read offline (lol sometimes having to save days and days of download credits just for a TEXT file! Man dialup was crazy. That said, without having to have one (kinda) standardized way to view documents those file formats would evolve beyond just text into something more like OpenOffice document formatting, again without the capitalism-driven effort to make snazzy, eyecatching but ultimately useless dynamically served document formats.
Honestly I think the dynamically served aspect of modern WWW documents is such a ridiculous waste of resources and bandwidth that not having it may just as well constitute a technical advancement over what we have today.
One of the things no one has talked about here are consumer content delivery services like AOL and Prodigy. These created some of the first Internet walled gardens, with programs created to serve these services’ content via phone lines. As consumers moved to broadband, I would expect these programs to become free and be the primary way for consumers to view content.
It wouldn’t. I don’t think it would ever have hit mass market appeal like it has now at least.
It would only be mediated through more complex applications. We’d have open source apps like thunderbird for email, still, but most applications would be written by large companies who can afford that kind of ground-up software development.
All walled gardens, none of the democratization we’ve come to know. None of those tiny websites. No independent blogs except on closed services like substack and medium. No independent forums, just one central service that houses all of them… IE reddit. Maybe social media is even more centralized than it is now; maybe nobody manages to get a network monopoly in this world, and some communication standard pops up, a less good version of the fediverse, so I don’t need five fucking apps, but the corporations still find a way to dominate that world.
Most importantly… The hyperlink is kind of dead. I can no longer click on an Associated Press article without an Associated Press app, or an app that knows how to read associated press apps. Maybe my RSS app has a feature like that built in, but if it does, it’s bordering on browser territory. The same holds true for buying; I can’t share a link to a niche brand’s website because it doesn’t have one, and you definitely don’t have their app installed, so clothes need to be on amazon or nordstrom or not exist.
The fact that most people can’t just click on a link to see what it is means that there are fewer references between some things and other things, the web is less connected.
This also ruins search. We can search Wikipedia, but we can’t search the whole internet, because the internet doesn’t have a unified format of references by which pagerank can operate, there are no websites to crawl, and the results you find each require you to download an app to interact with.
What does all of this mean? … well, it really means that somebody would have eventually seen the need for a browser and invented it.
All walled gardens, none of the democratization we know now
I think you’ve got that backwards. The early days of the web were the wild west; blogs, personal sites and forums were multitudinous. Weird, niche content was everywhere. Nobody knew what the web was supposed to be yet, so it could be anything. Nobody really knew how to make money from it, so passion rather than dollars was the motivation to create content.
Now, the web is basically a giant funnel into six monolithic corporate controlled websites (ie. Walled gardens). Enshittification has ensued and the fun has ended.
I pine for the days when you would log on to BBSes to have genuine discussions about niche hobbies and topics. It didn’t matter who you were as your only identity was your username; you could be whatever you wanted.
Now, the web is overflowing with millions of desperate, near identical 19 year olds shilling for BoredVPN while showing their arse cracks for fake internet points and sponsorship money.
Lemmy / Mastodon is the first platform in a VERY long time which has the same feeling as those early days and I really, really hope it sticks around.
I think you’ve got that backwards. The early days of the web were the wild west; blogs, personal sites and forums were multitudinous. Weird, niche content was everywhere. Nobody knew what the web was supposed to be yet, so it could be anything. Nobody really knew how to make money from it, so passion rather than dollars was the motivation to create content.
This relied on web browsers. Without web browsers, it would be worse than it is now.
Do you know what a BBS is? Or Usenet?
Usenet was for geeks who didn’t want a user interface getting between them and the raw text. It was never going to go mainstream, it was never going to be the internet.
I did not know that a terminal-BBS existed, but it sounds even worse than usenet. When I was a kid, people used the letters “bbs” to talk about web forums, generally. Those were websites. They were fine, but even they died out for a reason. The development and marketing of a web forum is not something that scales as well as the multi-forum technologies we have now — reddit and reddit-style fediverse systems.
People didn’t want to, and should not have wanted to, install a new app every time they wanted to try talking to new people, but they always did want a good user interface for the conversations they have.
So all of the current monolithic sites would notnexist without web browsers, and things would be far more decentralised
Big companies have enough money to develop and maintain dedicated applications for multiple platforms. Small and medium-sized services might be able to get one platform going, but they’d be lucky if they had any money left for marketing, or for developing new features, and would eventually either need to grow or accept obsolescence.
And again, I’m not going to develop a web application for my personal blog, and nobody’s going to download it; I would need to use a centralized service.
Gopher
NNTP FTW. There was nothing more entertaining than Usenet. I loved it, really.
We’d have something similar. Maybe more fragmented like Usenet + telnet BBSes + gopher + IRC, or a closed standard like hypercard that you had to license. People want to communicate and put stuff out there to be heard, it’d have happened somehow.
Do you mean if it started with apps right away instead, or how do you mean?
Not necessarily, but yes. I didn’t fill in a lot of detail for my question, but my question goes something like this in depth:
The software ecosystem is a mess right now, not just OS, but drivers, web, GUI, there’s some problems here and there, and thankfully, there’s also workarounds, and then there’s also this saying: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But that being said, stuff like these add to the technical debt, and perhaps in the future, it could implode, just like Y2K.
Of that, if we were to just cherry-pick web stuff, there’s a whole lot of conflicting standards, there’s different engines, transpilers, libraries, web frameworks, API, protocol standards, limited localization, poor accessibility, etc.
I was wondering - what if hypothetically, a small variable were to be introduced in the timeline that prevents the existence of browser and JavaScript in general? Would there have been the growth of apps and applets, that could have successfully used the internet? Perhaps the HTTPS would have never existed, because of the death of HTTP, maybe we would be using a Gopher equivalent of a browser? Maybe we could have seen solutions like Gemini and Yggdrasil? Could it have killed TCP/IP and we could have seen RINA? Would we have seen some sort of standardization? Or perhaps, would we have ended up with a population who were computer-literate and appreciated the power-user side of operating systems, like terminal browsers? Perhaps, it could have created a standardized internet experience? Maybe it could have improved accessibility? Then, what about the execution of code in general? Would we be downloading binaries, instead of loading webpages? How would it have been sand-boxed? Questions like that.
My guess is that if browsers as we know them weren’t invented, HyperCard would’ve become the first browser eventually. No idea where things would progress from there or if it’d have been better or worse than the current clusterfuck. Maybe we’d all be talking about our “web stacks” instead of websites, and have various punny tools like “pile” and “chimney” and “staplr”. Perhaps PowerPoint would’ve turned into a browser to compete with it.
If browsers were invented but JavaScript specifically was not, we’d probably all be programming sites in some VB variant like VBScript (although it might be called something different).
Like Gemini https://geminiprotocol.net/
The Matrix
