3 ms·

It's a cool idea, but I'm skeptical. This strategy does nothing to prevent the creation of a killer app. All it does is prevent the creation of a killer app on

• orangecat 16y ago
  In a parallel universe, when Microsoft released Windows 3.1 they also introduced a certification program requiring that they approve all applications. When NCSA developed Mosaic, Microsoft recognized the long-term danger to the Windows platform that it represented, and rejected it on the grounds of security/privacy/instability/resource consumption/whatever. It was available only on Mac and Unix platforms, and never became mainstream. This gave Microsoft time to develop their own hypertext platform, one that was deliberately tied to Windows. With great fanfare they released it a few years later, and it was widely adopted. Of course, only Windows machines could serve the documents that it used, and they worked best on Windows clients. The inevitable result was an entrenched Microsoft monopoly and technological stagnation, but hardly anyone complained because to most people the very concept of an alternate OS or browser was meaningless. If this seems absurd, consider South Korea where IE's monopoly is guaranteed by law: http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-south-korea-revisited/ http://www.mobinode.com/2009/01/16/activex-regulations-in-so...
  • glhaynes 16y ago
    To make this parallel universe scenario's Windows 3.1 analogous to "real"-universe c.2010's iOS, you'd need to make parallel-Windows 3.1 have about a quarter of the market rather than having a monopoly on it.