I do hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. The solution to those in the aggregate is not "Maintain IE6 backwards-compatibility forever." The chall

I do hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. The solution to those in the aggregate is not "Maintain IE6 backwards-compatibility forever." The challenge associated with that is why they're horror stories. But that's the opposite of what you're describing here; IE6 being supported ad-nauseum was necessary because MS had a bunch of non-compatible proprietary features in IE6 that didn't match to web standards. Google is trying to move out of supporting a non-web-standards architecture. I'm confused about what aspect of minimizing the attack vector on a standard user's computer fails to meet "Don't be evil" as a motto. Is it the part where minimizing the attack vector for people who don't have a need for Flash collides badly with the needs of people who do have a need for Flash? People who still have a need for Flash have alternate user agents available to them; they don't need Chrome. I'm sorry this change means you're going to have to account for your enterprise's reliance on Flash. I have friends who had to maintain code backwards-compatibility to pre-generics versions of Java. Enterprises gonna enterprise; we should neither hang the cutting edge nor the common person use-case on the relative lethargy of large companies.