3 ms·

However, I do think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Google does not have the resources to test and make sure that it does work on mobile Firefox.

by s73ver 9y ago

reitanqild 9y ago
Heh. I trust them less and less: Obvious problems goes unnoticed: search results page kept burning cpu if I keet it open in desktop Firefox. (Installed an extension to fix it and haven't tested lately.) It's hard to belive this can happen without anyone caring at such a big place. At a company that seems to be attracting the best and brightest it is really hard to belive this isn't intentional. Then again I've been equally wrong before.
fixermark 9y ago
So now assume they test and find it doesn't work on mobile Firefox. What should they do? Refrain from rolling out the design to Chrome and Safari until Firefox performance catches up, or roll out the functionality differently on different browsers? Sounds like, based on the descriptions here, they're doing the latter, right? Infinite scrolling on Chrome vs. paged viewing on Firefox, for instance.
- kuschku 9y ago
  They’ve now had 4 years. 4 goddamn years to update the Firefox version, and they’ve just removed features instead.
  - fixermark 9y ago
    That sounds like it was unworkable in Firefox. Maybe FF just isn't a very good browser? You can be standards-compliant while implementing the standards with performance problems and ugly corner-cases.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      It works in Firefox. Always has. Change the UA, and it just works. This is the same story as when Google made Inbox a "Chrome-Exclusive" that also didn’t run in Safari, Opera, or even fucking Chromium. It’s just anticompetitiveness.
      - IncRnd 9y ago
        > It’s just anticompetitiveness. I find it interesting how a word's proper usage is in a case that it's opposite would work better! Anticompetitive is the right word in your sentence, of course, but google isn't anti-competitive in this case with firefox. It is ultra-competitive!
- s73ver 9y ago
  "So now assume they test and find it doesn't work on mobile Firefox. What should they do?" Fix it, just like any other website out there.

However, I do think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Google does not have the resources to test and make sure that it does work on mobile Firefox.

by s73ver 9y ago

However, I do think you'd be hard pressed to claim that Google does not have the resources to test and make sure that it does work on mobile Firefox.

reitanqild 9y ago

Heh. I trust them less and less: Obvious problems goes unnoticed: search results page kept burning cpu if I keet it open in desktop Firefox. (Installed an extension to fix it and haven't tested lately.) It's hard to belive this can happen without anyone caring at such a big place. At a company that seems to be attracting the best and brightest it is really hard to belive this isn't intentional. Then again I've been equally wrong before.

fixermark 9y ago

So now assume they test and find it doesn't work on mobile Firefox. What should they do? Refrain from rolling out the design to Chrome and Safari until Firefox performance catches up, or roll out the functionality differently on different browsers? Sounds like, based on the descriptions here, they're doing the latter, right? Infinite scrolling on Chrome vs. paged viewing on Firefox, for instance.

kuschku 9y ago
They’ve now had 4 years. 4 goddamn years to update the Firefox version, and they’ve just removed features instead.
- fixermark 9y ago
  That sounds like it was unworkable in Firefox. Maybe FF just isn't a very good browser? You can be standards-compliant while implementing the standards with performance problems and ugly corner-cases.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    It works in Firefox. Always has. Change the UA, and it just works. This is the same story as when Google made Inbox a "Chrome-Exclusive" that also didn’t run in Safari, Opera, or even fucking Chromium. It’s just anticompetitiveness.
    - IncRnd 9y ago
      > It’s just anticompetitiveness. I find it interesting how a word's proper usage is in a case that it's opposite would work better! Anticompetitive is the right word in your sentence, of course, but google isn't anti-competitive in this case with firefox. It is ultra-competitive!
s73ver 9y ago
"So now assume they test and find it doesn't work on mobile Firefox. What should they do?" Fix it, just like any other website out there.