[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Supply and Demand

  On Tue, 25 Nov 1997 21:51:34 -0500 (EST), Mitch Stone wrote:
  >>If you're referring to lynx or w3, they were doomed from the get-go. There
  >>were several other browsers that crept up after Netscape's initial success
  >>such as NetManage's browser, etc.  However, most of these other browsers were
  >>woefully non-functional in comparison.
  >A spirited defense. Again, to take the devil's advocate position: 
  >substitute the names of any one of a number of former competitors, and I 
  >think you've got Microsoft's basic argument revisited (poorly functional 
  >products by comparison, drove itself out of business, etc.).
       But if the competition's products were so poor why the need to
  'dump' the browser and leverage their desktop OS monopoly to push IE. 
  To be honest I do believe that no matter what shape the competition's
  products were in M$ would leverage windoze to help push their product
  because that's just the way they do business (they'd just increase the
  price of the OS), but it would stand to reason that if all the
  competing products were so poor M$ would at least charge something for
  the browser itself.
       Allow me to play the 'devil's advocate' to the M$ position, if
  what they say about the other products is true why are they 'dumping'
  IE and why bother to fight the DOJ over whether or not it's bundled??? 
  If M$ was telling the truth (fat chance) everyone would *CHOOSE* to use
  IE so there'd be no need for all this fuss, but since that's not the
  case (ie. M$ is lying AGAIN) they're going to pull every dirty trick
  they can think of to force everyone to use it.  If everyone WANTED to
  use IE all this fuss over it would be moot.
  * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
  * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
  * with "send pub_key" in the subject          *