Please, your first sentence adds nothing, and it angers me.
In that day, targeted ads weren't a major source of revenue (revenue models were still being worked out). Many web sites built primarily for Microsoft then-that is, taking advantage of their standards-breaking browser. The public didn't really cared about any other browser (by that I mean the same "public" that doesn't really care about privacy now).
Microsoft did many bad things in that day. But if you wanted people to be able to use your site it had to work in IE (version 5 or 6 or so-I don't really remember). If it didn't work in Netscape it was no big deal. The web page would say "best viewed in IE5.5 or later" (or whatever version).
So, no, websites couldn't afford to block Microsoft. They would lose their customers.
I wish I could be angered by your reply, unfortunately it just amuses me. Web sites rely on advertising dollars for revenue. To be denied this revenue from the dominant browser would have created a revolt.
>So, no, websites couldn't afford to block Microsoft. They would lose their customers.
I see. So they can't afford to block Microsoft, but they can afford to have their main revenue stream cut off by Microsoft.
In that day, targeted ads weren't a major source of revenue (revenue models were still being worked out). Many web sites built primarily for Microsoft then-that is, taking advantage of their standards-breaking browser. The public didn't really cared about any other browser (by that I mean the same "public" that doesn't really care about privacy now).
Microsoft did many bad things in that day. But if you wanted people to be able to use your site it had to work in IE (version 5 or 6 or so-I don't really remember). If it didn't work in Netscape it was no big deal. The web page would say "best viewed in IE5.5 or later" (or whatever version).
So, no, websites couldn't afford to block Microsoft. They would lose their customers.