Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2011 08:19 UTC, submitted by porcel
Permalink for comment 472792
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-11
And why weren't there alternatives? This is exactly how the MS monopoly held back progress. They killed Mosaic with dirty tactics and Netscape by bundling (kill two birds with one stone). Then using their dominance in the market and web development products spread non-standard web sites further locking out competitors.
Notice how much work they put forth on IE until FireFox began to eat into their market share . . .
Monopolies don’t need to put money into advancing a product until a viable competitor force them too.