That it were weaker offerings is not always true. Google is the Gorilla in the room who simply squeezed out any competition by offering Android “for free”
Microsoft Explorer did the same earlier with Netscape. Simply bundle your own software with the OS and watch the competition flutter.
Your average consumer really doesn’t know the difference.
Yet they failed to gain a foothold in Windows Mobile after literally decades trying and they had to take 4 swings at Netscape before they really gained inroads.
I question that common folklore and claim it uses anecdotal cherry picked non rigorous evidence. It's just a bad theory.
Of course monopolies try to leverage their position as IBM tried with their failed MCA bus and failed XGA standard and failed OS/2 product. As it turns out, monopoly thuggery can't seem to reliably zombie walk terrible products that nobody wants.
Instead, people have dramatically different concerns and if you read into each one of these cases you'll find that out. That's the real reliable truth here
Stop fighting realities you don't like. All of humanity isn't going to bend the ways you want it.
That last point you make is crucial. Your average user just wants to go “on the web”, but doesn’t really know any difference between one browser or the next. This is why IE6 thrived, plus companies adopting it as their default install.
Exactly. Talk all the shit you want, and we can do it all day with IE6 but it did what people needed and it hit numbers north of 90% and had staying power unlike any other browser/version pair since.
If you want to understand how humans relate to technology, writing such things off as irrelevant, simply because IE6 was technical swiss cheese, is foolish.
Microsoft Explorer did the same earlier with Netscape. Simply bundle your own software with the OS and watch the competition flutter.
Your average consumer really doesn’t know the difference.