I'm not sure that IE6 was the problem; was it really that much worse than Netscape 4 or IE5?
I think it is more that Microsoft didn't update their browser for such a long time after releasing it, resulting in a large percentage of users having an old browser (which wasn't updated like others to implement standards). That is what Microsoft should be apologizing for.
Why did this get downvoted? I'm not trolling, and if I'm wrong I'm interested in hearing why. One of the other three posts seems to be saying a similar thing, too.
I'm comparing against IE5 and Netscape 4 since those were browsers of the same era and neither was all that great in following standards either and they of course don't support newer standards created over the years. Wouldn't web developers be complaining at similar levels if a large percentage of users were still running Netscape 4?
Also, I'm pretty sure the poster is referring to IE6 the browser rather than Microsoft's Internet strategy around that time since it says that "IE9 is better".
I think my point behind making the distinction is that IE6 developers should not feel any shame; it was a decent browser for its time; Microsoft IE management (or perhaps MS upper management) from the time immediately after IE6 release hold the blame.
I also think everyone knows why IE9 is better. It's better because it supports things that Google Chrome supported when it first came out.
Funny thing is... IE6 was not the problem, it was the overall strategy, which is why I can't trust MS for anything. So IDK if a drink will do. Maybe a hit of E + a bit of ganja to make me feel more relaxed about it... maybe... Control The Rage!
I think it is more that Microsoft didn't update their browser for such a long time after releasing it, resulting in a large percentage of users having an old browser (which wasn't updated like others to implement standards). That is what Microsoft should be apologizing for.