4 ms·

The only sites I've seen that only work on Chrome are generally due to the developers being lazy and only targeting the top platform. It's similar to many games

The only sites I've seen that only work on Chrome are generally due to the developers being lazy and only targeting the top platform. It's similar to many games only being available on iOS a few years ago, or many programs only being available on Windows. Now with the web, it's much easier to make something work across all platforms, except at the bleeding edge, which is generally where you'll find those sites. Almost all the ones I've seen were tech demos of new browser tech that wasn't available everywhere yet.

jhasse 9y ago
WhatsApp Web was Chrome-only for a while. That was quite a big one for many people I know.
- 0xcoffee 9y ago
  Google Inbox didn't work on Edge for the longest time. Claim was because edge didn't support some feature they needed, but when the agent was spoofed it worked fine.
codazoda 9y ago
Like Google Hangouts?
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  And Signal Private Messenger
  - _jal 9y ago
    And Discord.
  - Aaronn 9y ago
    Even though Firefox is now supporting the same WebExtentions API that powers Chrome extensions, Open Whisper Systems refuses to support Firefox, see https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/pull/592#issuecomment-303572962 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/pull/592#is....
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>The only sites I've seen that only work on Chrome are generally due to the developers being lazy and only targeting the top platform. That was the case with sites only working on IE 6. What did you expect? And after some market share point, it's not about laziness either, it makes business sense to not waste time for a small percentage of users (100% reach is not always better than 90% reach -- there's this thing called "opportunity cost"). This is what we want to avoid.
- flukus 9y ago
  > And after some market share point, it's not about laziness either, it makes business sense to not waste time for a small percentage of users (100% reach is not always better than 90% reach -- there's this thing called "opportunity cost"). A lot of companies that thought short term like that our paying through the nose for the decision now because they are still stuck on IE6. There is a business case for avoiding vendor lock in, but it's not quantifiable so it gets ignored.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    That was for using special IE-only features, like Active-X and co, that were never part of the standards. Not about not caring to test/optimize for other browsers, or using standard stuff some browser gets out faster -- which is what some companies do today with Chrome.
  - imron 9y ago
    > A lot of companies that thought short term like that our paying through the nose for the decision now because they are still stuck on IE6. How many of them will remember the lessons? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

jhasse 9y ago

WhatsApp Web was Chrome-only for a while. That was quite a big one for many people I know.

0xcoffee 9y ago
Google Inbox didn't work on Edge for the longest time. Claim was because edge didn't support some feature they needed, but when the agent was spoofed it worked fine.

codazoda 9y ago

Like Google Hangouts?

eeZah7Ux 9y ago
And Signal Private Messenger
- _jal 9y ago
  And Discord.
- Aaronn 9y ago
  Even though Firefox is now supporting the same WebExtentions API that powers Chrome extensions, Open Whisper Systems refuses to support Firefox, see https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/pull/592#issuecomment-303572962 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Desktop/pull/592#is....
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>The only sites I've seen that only work on Chrome are generally due to the developers being lazy and only targeting the top platform. That was the case with sites only working on IE 6. What did you expect? And after some market share point, it's not about laziness either, it makes business sense to not waste time for a small percentage of users (100% reach is not always better than 90% reach -- there's this thing called "opportunity cost"). This is what we want to avoid.

flukus 9y ago
> And after some market share point, it's not about laziness either, it makes business sense to not waste time for a small percentage of users (100% reach is not always better than 90% reach -- there's this thing called "opportunity cost"). A lot of companies that thought short term like that our paying through the nose for the decision now because they are still stuck on IE6. There is a business case for avoiding vendor lock in, but it's not quantifiable so it gets ignored.
- coldtea 9y ago
  That was for using special IE-only features, like Active-X and co, that were never part of the standards. Not about not caring to test/optimize for other browsers, or using standard stuff some browser gets out faster -- which is what some companies do today with Chrome.
- imron 9y ago
  > A lot of companies that thought short term like that our paying through the nose for the decision now because they are still stuck on IE6. How many of them will remember the lessons? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.