| > You have to use their browser on iOS and its purpose is to be less capable than competing browsers This is not a serious take. Safari on iOS is a very capable browser and crazy things have been done with it. Where it does make it difficult to replace a dedicated app, this can be ascribed to security more easily than "Apple wants one of its major iOS features to be bad". > Microsoft intentionally made them crash on Microsoft operating systems This is not a serious take. I'd love to see proof of this. There are lots of reasons Office became dominant, some of them even anticompetitive; "MS made competitors crash" is probably not one of them. > It was supposed to make it easier for users to switch operating systems This is not a serious take. Java was never intended to make it easy for users to switch operating systems. Sun did not make "supplant Windows!" one of its KPIs, and the continued dominance of Windows is neither here nor there when evaluating whether Java was successful. Java's pitch was to make writing platform-independent code easier, but at best that's tangentially related to having users switch OS's. > Outlook.com has 400 million users. So? > And we got large email providers to begin with because they were the ones who could overcome the Microsoft lock in to Outlook/Exchange. You're replying to a comment about people who run their own web server, so talking about Exchange lock-in is neither here nor there. |