User:Dreftymac/EmbraceAndExtend

EmbraceAndExtend

 * rapid change = extend or bypass standards this point famously comes up in the context of the 'browser wars'. MSFT, for example, released developer documentation indicating which features of MSIE conformed with W3C standards, and which parts didn't. This was their stab at 'standards compliance' while still maintaining flexibility. Certain proprietary features in MSIE (e.g. VML ActiveX) hurt interop, but leverage existing MSFT technology and enhance MSIE integration with MSFT Office. Similarly, Netscape introduced the font tag in contravention of CSS standards, hurting interop. These are examples that support the existence (if not the legitimacy) of the claim that we had to extend the standards because they move to slow or we had to extend because we already had in-house technology that obviated the standard
 * workforce and extinction At some point, many commentators noted that the functionality of MSIE surpassed that of Netscape. Although this is factually debatable, this 'inflection point' did not occur until MSFT made MSIE a top development priority, supported by several million dollars investment in personnel. This shift in priority had a non-zero opportunity cost. Extinction is also hard to pinpoint, some say it occurs when total cost of supporting a product surpases total revenue generated by sales, other say it occurs when its value as a speculative investment is too low (for products that do not yet even generate revenue, as is (was) common in the IT industry). The point is, some say that "market driven" extinction renders "anti-competitive driven" extinction a moot point. It is debatable whether some companies consider a product or feature "market-extinct" even though they continue to sell it, or secondary markets continue to thrive.