Probably because MS could get away with it?It seems to have worked: a tit speak* it had 95% usage share. The fact that it's installed by default, and that it's the only one (AFAIK) that supports MS proprietary protocols like ActiveX, must have helped.
And probably because it serves their interests? Think of it from MS's point of view: they only want to spend money on things that earn them more money. Adding proprietary protocols (eg. ActiveX) increases lock-in to Windows. In some ways, making a more broken browser increases lock-in too! ('Hey, our corporate website looks okay in MSIE, but looks wrong on others, so we'll require all employees to use MSIE).
But making a better browser per se is not likely to make people pay more money to MS for copies of Windows! (People who care will happily switch to Firefox). MS do spend money on it, but they aren't very good at producing simple and efficient standards-compliant software. That's just not what MS is designed to do!
If you're wanting them to fix it, I wouldn't hold your breath.
*: some typos were meant to be left.
(And probably because it serves their interests? Think of it from MS's point of view: they only want to spend money on things that earn them more money. Adding proprietary protocols (eg. ActiveX) increases lock-in to Windows. In some ways, making a more broken browser increases lock-in too! ('Hey, our corporate website looks okay in MSIE, but looks wrong on others, so we'll require all employees to use MSIE).
But making a better browser per se is not likely to make people pay more money to MS for copies of Windows! (People who care will happily switch to Firefox). MS do spend money on it, but they aren't very good at producing simple and efficient standards-compliant software. That's just not what MS is designed to do!
If you're wanting them to fix it, I wouldn't hold your breath.
*: some typos were meant to be left.
Bee Nice |-|,
Wed 6 May 2009, 13:52,
archived)
