4 ms·

Running IE precludes an operating system and hardware on which it runs. If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it. This brow

by xirium 19y ago

Running IE precludes an operating system and hardware on which it runs. If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it. This browser can be run on many operating systems. Most importantly, early adopters who are likely to use this browser are more likely to be an early adopter of your service. For the same reason, I'd recommend developing a Firefox plugin rather than an IE plugin.

mixmax 19y ago
>"If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it." I know that this is a tech site, and that I am probably get modded down for saying this: But that is absolutely ridicolous. Basically what you are doing if you are only developing for firefox is opening a shop where you only let 10% of your customeres through the door. The rest will have to go home, or go to you competition. I mean, seriously... Business 101 guys ;-)
- cstejerean 19y ago
  No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable. Most IE market share is not early adoption friendly. If they wouldn't fear new technology they would be on Firefox already. Either they never heard of Firefox or don't want to try it out. Neither one is a quality that indicates early adopter.
  - greendestiny 19y ago
    I actually considered doing the web application I'm doing at the moment as firefox only, purely because it heavily relied on SVG. It's very much a niche market where my competitors are desktop applications, and it will be a fairly expensive subscription service so it didn't seem unreasonable to demand users download firefox. Eventually though I just came to realise that the biggest advantage of the web was the ability to have anyone come to my site and be ready to use the product. So in the end I've gone with flash.
    - mixmax 19y ago
      Good decision :-) And all the best of luck...
      - greendestiny 19y ago
        I know its not sort of cool, but actually using flex on rails is great.
        mixmax 19y ago
        Ithink it's cool that you made that decision. But hey, I'm just the business guy ;-)
        boucher 19y ago
        See, I wholeheartedly agree with you about IE, but flash suffers from many of the same problems. It's a plugin, so right out of the gate a whole class of people won't be able to use it. Plus, even though many have flash installed, versions vary widely, so unless you code for flash 6, again, good luck working with everyone's computer. There's a right way to do things, with built in browser support, across all the major browsers. We spent time up front to make sure things did work, and now we continue to reap the benefits.
        greendestiny 19y ago
        Admittedly this is adobe propaganda, but their website has stats on flash penetration, its pretty impressive: http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer I did once see on a comment here that more people had flash in their browser than had javascript turned on, but I can't vouch for that. Of course I am using SVG which means firefox or a badly supported plugin for IE. If you didn't need flash's interactivity, graphics or sound it would be pretty silly to use it.
        BrandonM 19y ago
  - mixmax 19y ago
    >"No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable" So you think that users will go through the trouble of installing a new browser to see a free website or a product in beta? Good luck with that... It seems to me that a lot of really good programmers (of which you seem to be one, judging from your comments) don't mingle a lot with "normal" people. These are the ones that have normal lives, use their computer only as a tool that is expected to just work, and use IE because it came with the computer. And they are the ones that will pay for products. Early adopters are a really hard crowd to make money from, they expect everything to be free, and they will move on as soon as something more exciting comes along. I would never launch a product, not even in a beta, that only works in firefox, Not only do you lose more than half of your potential customers, but it also sends a signal that either you are not very good at what you do since you only seem to be able to make it work in one browser, or else that you don't much care. Both are pretty bad.
    - brlewis 19y ago
      I interact with "normal" people, and at one family I know switched to Firefox because of the piclens plugin. It's actually not that uncommon for Windows users to install software on their computer off the Internet. They do so more than I do, actually. If I can't apt-get it I usually pass.
      - mixmax 19y ago
        I didn't say that you won't get any users, just that you could have had roughly twice as many if you properly support all browsers. And this is all about business, yes ?
        akkartik 19y ago
        That's as simplistic as arguing a startup should go for the largest market it can. Focus is worth a lot.
- webwright 19y ago
  First of all, FF has a global market share of about 21%. If you were looking to test an idea to the "early adopter" crowd (the "echo chamber"), starting with FF/Safari is the smart way to do it. What percentage of tech bloggers of note use IE? Assuming your v1 test is successful and it's time to "cross the chasm", of course, IE is a must. If you'd like a little data thrown in, our userbase (after being on TechCrunch twice and LifeHacker 3 times in the last few months) is only 21% IE.
  - agotterer 19y ago
    Even at 21% market share if your core audience is intelligent/computer savvy theres a good chance your user base could have a higher FF ratio. I work for a website that has a target market of college students and our FF user base is much higher then 21%, most likely because they are young and computer educated.

by xirium 19y ago

mixmax 19y ago

>"If you asked about developing for Firefox only then I'd strongly recommend it." I know that this is a tech site, and that I am probably get modded down for saying this: But that is absolutely ridicolous. Basically what you are doing if you are only developing for firefox is opening a shop where you only let 10% of your customeres through the door. The rest will have to go home, or go to you competition. I mean, seriously... Business 101 guys ;-)

cstejerean 19y ago
No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable. Most IE market share is not early adoption friendly. If they wouldn't fear new technology they would be on Firefox already. Either they never heard of Firefox or don't want to try it out. Neither one is a quality that indicates early adopter.
- greendestiny 19y ago
  I actually considered doing the web application I'm doing at the moment as firefox only, purely because it heavily relied on SVG. It's very much a niche market where my competitors are desktop applications, and it will be a fairly expensive subscription service so it didn't seem unreasonable to demand users download firefox. Eventually though I just came to realise that the biggest advantage of the web was the ability to have anyone come to my site and be ready to use the product. So in the end I've gone with flash.
  - mixmax 19y ago
    Good decision :-) And all the best of luck...
    - greendestiny 19y ago
      I know its not sort of cool, but actually using flex on rails is great.
      - mixmax 19y ago
        Ithink it's cool that you made that decision. But hey, I'm just the business guy ;-)
        boucher 19y ago
        See, I wholeheartedly agree with you about IE, but flash suffers from many of the same problems. It's a plugin, so right out of the gate a whole class of people won't be able to use it. Plus, even though many have flash installed, versions vary widely, so unless you code for flash 6, again, good luck working with everyone's computer. There's a right way to do things, with built in browser support, across all the major browsers. We spent time up front to make sure things did work, and now we continue to reap the benefits.
        greendestiny 19y ago
        Admittedly this is adobe propaganda, but their website has stats on flash penetration, its pretty impressive: http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/flashplayer I did once see on a comment here that more people had flash in their browser than had javascript turned on, but I can't vouch for that. Of course I am using SVG which means firefox or a badly supported plugin for IE. If you didn't need flash's interactivity, graphics or sound it would be pretty silly to use it.
        BrandonM 19y ago
- mixmax 19y ago
  >"No, the other option is for your customers to install Firefox. Now this isn't always something you can demand/expect of your users. But for example for a free service or during a beta period it's perfectly reasonable" So you think that users will go through the trouble of installing a new browser to see a free website or a product in beta? Good luck with that... It seems to me that a lot of really good programmers (of which you seem to be one, judging from your comments) don't mingle a lot with "normal" people. These are the ones that have normal lives, use their computer only as a tool that is expected to just work, and use IE because it came with the computer. And they are the ones that will pay for products. Early adopters are a really hard crowd to make money from, they expect everything to be free, and they will move on as soon as something more exciting comes along. I would never launch a product, not even in a beta, that only works in firefox, Not only do you lose more than half of your potential customers, but it also sends a signal that either you are not very good at what you do since you only seem to be able to make it work in one browser, or else that you don't much care. Both are pretty bad.
  - brlewis 19y ago
    I interact with "normal" people, and at one family I know switched to Firefox because of the piclens plugin. It's actually not that uncommon for Windows users to install software on their computer off the Internet. They do so more than I do, actually. If I can't apt-get it I usually pass.
    - mixmax 19y ago
      I didn't say that you won't get any users, just that you could have had roughly twice as many if you properly support all browsers. And this is all about business, yes ?
      - akkartik 19y ago
        That's as simplistic as arguing a startup should go for the largest market it can. Focus is worth a lot.
webwright 19y ago
First of all, FF has a global market share of about 21%. If you were looking to test an idea to the "early adopter" crowd (the "echo chamber"), starting with FF/Safari is the smart way to do it. What percentage of tech bloggers of note use IE? Assuming your v1 test is successful and it's time to "cross the chasm", of course, IE is a must. If you'd like a little data thrown in, our userbase (after being on TechCrunch twice and LifeHacker 3 times in the last few months) is only 21% IE.
- agotterer 19y ago
  Even at 21% market share if your core audience is intelligent/computer savvy theres a good chance your user base could have a higher FF ratio. I work for a website that has a target market of college students and our FF user base is much higher then 21%, most likely because they are young and computer educated.