WereKitten said:
The whole point of the thread is that being anticompetitive means you are not aimimg at competing by offering a generally better product. When Win95 came out, IBM OS2 was an arguably better OS and it could run win16 applications on top of a better desktop environment. MS dealt a fair amount of backstabbing (google for the whole story about the MS/IBM deal) and the worst product came out on top. Strategies like FUD, "embrace, extend, extiguish" and lock-in add no real practical value for the consumer. On the contrary they generally limit options for development and economic expansion of smaller enterprises.
|
You did it again :) (not complaining)







