4 ms·

You have to look at opportunity cost. There is significant dev time that is spent supporting those configuration mixes that relatively few people will use. If

You have to look at opportunity cost. There is significant dev time that is spent supporting those configuration mixes that relatively few people will use. If that dev time could be spent on other features that will be appreciated by more people, then that is a decision you can make while still adhering to the principle of "users-first".

andosa 9y ago
So a multihundred billion dollar web company doesn't have the dev resources to support Firefox? Even though it already works when you spoof the agent string?
- askafriend 9y ago
  Even with all the resources in the world, opportunity cost plays into every decision. To remove that context would be missing my point. And as always, resources dedicated to a project are finite. The “X billion dollar company can’t do trivial Y thing” isn’t as straightforward as it seems and the argument rarely holds up to scrutiny in my opinion. We’re missing a ton of internal context here, and to have a real discussion we’d need that context. Otherwise there are tons of valid reasons why the opportunity cost calculation might not have worked out.
  - andosa 9y ago
    At some point you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line where Google is unable to make a search page (that is making them the "x billion dollar" company in the first place) work with Firefox due to "lack of dev resources". Even though the only thing stopping the page from working in FF is a user agent check. You are making exactly the same argument that Microsoft proponents were making when IE was bundled into Windows trying to push off other browsers. We don't have all the context, it must be too difficult to separate browser and OS code, etc
    - xerophyte12932 9y ago
      I agree. At some point they should stop considering FF users as "well they aren't OUR users" in the cost benefit equation. They have to acknowledge that FF has a big chunk of the market and it should be part of the "Browsers we test on" list. Considering the features work fine on FF, the actual costs for testing on FF should be minimal.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        Well, they’re busy solving that with alternative solutions, by paying devs to secretly install Chrome with their software, and set it as default, and similar shady deals. This is helpfully decimating the marketshare of anything that isn’t Chrome. Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWx1P93nS0c&t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWx1P93nS0c&t=48s Google even tried
        Fnoord 9y ago
        > Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers: It doesn't mention when though. If its around the time where MSIE was dominant, well, I (FWIW) got less of a problem with that. Because -even with its profiling- Google Chrome is objectively a far, far better browser than MSIE ever was. And the Google of 2005 or 2010 is a better Google than Microsoft was in 1998 or 2002. Check the Halloween documents on that one.
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  It's still just a team of 5-50 human people working on each team, and they can only to do what they can do.
  - fbender 9y ago
    The only real cost here is processor cycles for increased number of automated tests. You don't even need a part time job to maintain the extra tests (otherwise you'd do something wrong).
- emmelaich 9y ago
  They are a multihundred billion dollar web company because they carefully manage their resources.
  - _pmf_ 9y ago
    Dozens of product duds speak a different language.
    - emmelaich 9y ago
      You mean discontinued duds? That reinforces my point rather than negates it.
- mcherm 9y ago
  If the company were worth a lot less it would be EASIER to support a different browser that already works.
fbender 9y ago
> There is significant dev time that is spent supporting those configuration mixes that relatively few people will use. The issue I have with this is that too many are looking at percentage/share/ratio only. Yes, percentage matters. But absolute values matter just as much. Or would you call a couple of million people "just a few"? And nobody answer with "for Google, yes", that's completely besides the point.
- gwenzek 9y ago
  I'm a Firefox user working at Google. A lot of internal tools are Chrome only and when they get released to public they have a lot of technical debt to make it compatible with FF. The thing is engineer seems to always go for the latest internal library like Polymer which are only supported by Chrome. FF is working on supporting it which would probably improve the situation for a lot of Google product but it's taking time. Also I've heard that Google is not so good at hiring front end engineer, as they are less likely to have the "inverse a binary tree" background.

andosa 9y ago

So a multihundred billion dollar web company doesn't have the dev resources to support Firefox? Even though it already works when you spoof the agent string?

askafriend 9y ago
Even with all the resources in the world, opportunity cost plays into every decision. To remove that context would be missing my point. And as always, resources dedicated to a project are finite. The “X billion dollar company can’t do trivial Y thing” isn’t as straightforward as it seems and the argument rarely holds up to scrutiny in my opinion. We’re missing a ton of internal context here, and to have a real discussion we’d need that context. Otherwise there are tons of valid reasons why the opportunity cost calculation might not have worked out.
- andosa 9y ago
  At some point you have to stop giving the benefit of the doubt. I draw the line where Google is unable to make a search page (that is making them the "x billion dollar" company in the first place) work with Firefox due to "lack of dev resources". Even though the only thing stopping the page from working in FF is a user agent check. You are making exactly the same argument that Microsoft proponents were making when IE was bundled into Windows trying to push off other browsers. We don't have all the context, it must be too difficult to separate browser and OS code, etc
  - xerophyte12932 9y ago
    I agree. At some point they should stop considering FF users as "well they aren't OUR users" in the cost benefit equation. They have to acknowledge that FF has a big chunk of the market and it should be part of the "Browsers we test on" list. Considering the features work fine on FF, the actual costs for testing on FF should be minimal.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Well, they’re busy solving that with alternative solutions, by paying devs to secretly install Chrome with their software, and set it as default, and similar shady deals. This is helpfully decimating the marketshare of anything that isn’t Chrome. Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWx1P93nS0c&t=48s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWx1P93nS0c&t=48s Google even tried
      - Fnoord 9y ago
        > Even the VLC authors documented how Google tried paying them to ship Chrome as default with their installers: It doesn't mention when though. If its around the time where MSIE was dominant, well, I (FWIW) got less of a problem with that. Because -even with its profiling- Google Chrome is objectively a far, far better browser than MSIE ever was. And the Google of 2005 or 2010 is a better Google than Microsoft was in 1998 or 2002. Check the Halloween documents on that one.
BurningFrog 9y ago
It's still just a team of 5-50 human people working on each team, and they can only to do what they can do.
- fbender 9y ago
  The only real cost here is processor cycles for increased number of automated tests. You don't even need a part time job to maintain the extra tests (otherwise you'd do something wrong).
emmelaich 9y ago
They are a multihundred billion dollar web company because they carefully manage their resources.
- _pmf_ 9y ago
  Dozens of product duds speak a different language.
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    You mean discontinued duds? That reinforces my point rather than negates it.
mcherm 9y ago
If the company were worth a lot less it would be EASIER to support a different browser that already works.

fbender 9y ago

> There is significant dev time that is spent supporting those configuration mixes that relatively few people will use. The issue I have with this is that too many are looking at percentage/share/ratio only. Yes, percentage matters. But absolute values matter just as much. Or would you call a couple of million people "just a few"? And nobody answer with "for Google, yes", that's completely besides the point.

gwenzek 9y ago
I'm a Firefox user working at Google. A lot of internal tools are Chrome only and when they get released to public they have a lot of technical debt to make it compatible with FF. The thing is engineer seems to always go for the latest internal library like Polymer which are only supported by Chrome. FF is working on supporting it which would probably improve the situation for a lot of Google product but it's taking time. Also I've heard that Google is not so good at hiring front end engineer, as they are less likely to have the "inverse a binary tree" background.