I should have clarified that to be Chromebook and Android.

End of the day, the Microsoft ecosystem just dominated client tech utterly. The previous king of mobile, Blackberry, was basically a hardware version of Microsoft Outlook.

They had tablets and phones years ago, but chose to position them as shitty PCs instead of real devices. Internet Explorer for Windows CE was a steaming pile of shit that has it been something better would have changed many things.

Today Microsoft is in trouble and is running on inertia. In many ways Apple owns higher ed. Google completely dominates K-12. The Windows 10 strategy is designed to make IT people in enterprises fail.

All of that was triggered by the iPhone.

Google bought Android and was converting it into a phone OS years before iPhone was announced [0].

While the original hardware looks more like a Blackberry, and was definitely influenced by the iPhone afterwards, it's also wrong to say we wouldn't have gotten Android without the iPhone.

[0] https://www.androidauthority.com/history-android-os-name-789...

> Today Microsoft is in trouble and is running on inertia.

Not really. It's actually doing a lot better than a couple of years ago.

Perhaps he means this: "The WebKit project was started within Apple by Don Melton on June 25, 2001"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit

Amusingly, the Wikipedia article begins with the line "WebKit is a browser engine used in Apple's Safari browser and other products."

But the DDG preview starts with the line "WebKit is a browser engine used in Google's Chrome browser and other products."

I wonder if there's an edit war going on in that article.

Surely they would have just gone with the original KHTML or some Gecko-based thing instead. I don't think we wouldn't have Chrome, just that it may look different.

Looks like DDG just happened to index it during the 11 days last year when it was changed to Chrome. Not so much an edit war as good/bad timing.