3 ms·
> (Really - giving away a free browser harms consumers?) Really, it does, and you were alive and on the internet at the time. You saw the rise of webpages that
by piva00 2y ago
> (Really - giving away a free browser harms consumers?)
Really, it does, and you were alive and on the internet at the time. You saw the rise of webpages that would only work on IE because it was bundled, you saw the demise of Netscape as a competitor because people wouldn't go through the motions of downloading another browser on a 28.8/56kbps connection.
Price dumping with extra steps is still price dumping.
- WalterBright 2y agoAs I remarked, I used Netscape first. I abandoned it for Explorer because Netscape crashed all the time, to the point of being unusuable. Explorer was simply better.
- chii 2y agowhether iexplorer was better or not doesn't have anything to do with it being a subject of monopoly practises.
- WalterBright 2y agoOf course it does. It is an explanation for why Explorer was preferred. Explorer was not forced on anybody.
- ThrowawayB7 2y agoAll preventing that got us was a Chrome browser monopoly instead by a business whose overwhelmingly dominant source of revenue was internet advertising, oops. Talk about going from the frying pan into the fire. We'd probably have come out better off with the Internet Explorer monopoly.
- shiroiushi 2y agoAt least Chrome will work on many different OSes, and [Chromium] is open-source so it can be compiled for anything. The problem with IE was that it forced everyone to buy and use Windows. If they had made it free and open-source so people could use it on any platform they wanted, it would have been fine.