3 ms·

> We didn't blame Microsoft for "lock-in" back in the IE-only website days Yes, we did. Very loudly and very frequently. So loudly and frequently that the comp

by pdkl95 10y ago

> We didn't blame Microsoft for "lock-in" back in the IE-only website days Yes, we did. Very loudly and very frequently. So loudly and frequently that the company was charged with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The expression "embrace, extend, extinguish"[1] was first used to describe Microsoft's attempt to "lock-in" the WWW. Introducing incompatibilities into IE and proprietary extensions (ActiveX, which Google is copying with NaCL) allowed make a show of embracing open standards as bait for the lock-in. This isn't theoretical - in Bill Gates's own words[2]: >> "One thing we have got to change in our strategy--allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples [sic] browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish [2] (pdf) http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...

sangnoir 10y ago
>> We didn't blame Microsoft for "lock-in" back in the IE-only website days >Yes, we did. My phrasing wasn't as clear as I thought - what I meant to say "We didn't blame Microsoft for 'lock-in' due to 3rd parties creating IE-only websites, we blamed the 3rd parties." Implementing non-standard extensions was par for the course during the browser wars (Netscape did the same), and I doubt there was a real expectation of achieving lock-in via the browser by either party: Windows achieved lock-in via Windows, Office and legal threats. Not IE.
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  In South Korea, Windows achieved lock-in via legislation requiring IE (or more precisely ActiveX). See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/due-to-security-law-south-korea-is-stuck-with-internet-explorer-for-online-shopping/2013/11/03/ffd2528a-3eff-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/due-to-sec... for a decent summary. And yes, there was very much expectation of achieving lock-in via ActiveX. And it worked in some cases.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by pdkl95 10y ago

sangnoir 10y ago

>> We didn't blame Microsoft for "lock-in" back in the IE-only website days >Yes, we did. My phrasing wasn't as clear as I thought - what I meant to say "We didn't blame Microsoft for 'lock-in' due to 3rd parties creating IE-only websites, we blamed the 3rd parties." Implementing non-standard extensions was par for the course during the browser wars (Netscape did the same), and I doubt there was a real expectation of achieving lock-in via the browser by either party: Windows achieved lock-in via Windows, Office and legal threats. Not IE.

bzbarsky 10y ago
In South Korea, Windows achieved lock-in via legislation requiring IE (or more precisely ActiveX). See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/due-to-security-law-south-korea-is-stuck-with-internet-explorer-for-online-shopping/2013/11/03/ffd2528a-3eff-11e3-b028-de922d7a3f47_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/due-to-sec... for a decent summary. And yes, there was very much expectation of achieving lock-in via ActiveX. And it worked in some cases.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]