4 ms·

The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.

by lenni 16y ago

glhaynes 16y ago
Upvoted, but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity. Corporate IT reasonably finds this attractive even in the face of its downsides. So the lesson if you're gonna be Microsoft and you're gonna have few releases seems to be: pick the standards (de jure or de facto) that seem very likely to have a good chance of being widely-adopted, keeping in mind that you have huge influence over that variable since you control the most widely-used browser in the world, especially if you make your moves wisely and with high quality.
- lenni 16y ago
  I understand why Microsoft is doing it, but I still know this is against my best interest.
- StrawberryFrog 16y ago
  but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity In theory. yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. Firefox and Chrome get automatically updated quite rapidly, so the current version is the only very important one.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    You're talking about benefits to the progression of the browser. I'm talking about [perceived, at least] benefits to the user (large corporations) of the browser.
    - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
      Who else other than the user would the benefits go to? Web developer maybe, but their interests are aligned, unless you like being stuck using a IE6-only site during the day, and weeping when you compare it to the modern internet that you use in the evenings.
      - glhaynes 16y ago
        Corporate IT managers think (rightly or wrongly; probably some of both) that they benefit from fewer browser updates. And to some degree, other folks in corporate IT... developers also prefer targeting fewer browser variations, etc. Perhaps they don't prefer it more highly than their preference for being able to write to modern standards, but when you're into user testing and there's two weeks left on your deadline, you hate to have to spend a lot of time dealing with the fact that it turns out that you have more versions of browsers out there than you thought and they don't all deal with your shiny new web app in the same way. It also sucks to have to deal with calls that the z in Firefox x.y.z broke your app that you weren't expecting to spend any money on maintaining this month.
        StrawberryFrog 16y ago
        you hate to have to spend a lot of time dealing with the fact that it turns out that you have more versions of browsers out there than you thought But there are effectively only 2 versions of firefox in play on this day today: 3.6.10 : The current release 4.0b : The current beta And you can tell the people on 4.0b that it's their problem for using a beta.
  - Encosia 16y ago
    Problem is, the "threat" of uncontrolled update rollouts significantly hampers adoption in many large organizations (which is where the majority of IE6 laggards are located).

The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.

by lenni 16y ago

The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.

Upvoted, but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity. Corporate IT reasonably finds this attractive even in the face of its downsides. So the lesson if you're gonna be Microsoft and you're gonna have few releases seems to be: pick the standards (de jure or de facto) that seem very likely to have a good chance of being widely-adopted, keeping in mind that you have huge influence over that variable since you control the most widely-used browser in the world, especially if you make your moves wisely and with high quality.

lenni 16y ago
I understand why Microsoft is doing it, but I still know this is against my best interest.
StrawberryFrog 16y ago
but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity In theory. yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. Firefox and Chrome get automatically updated quite rapidly, so the current version is the only very important one.
- glhaynes 16y ago
  You're talking about benefits to the progression of the browser. I'm talking about [perceived, at least] benefits to the user (large corporations) of the browser.
  - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
    Who else other than the user would the benefits go to? Web developer maybe, but their interests are aligned, unless you like being stuck using a IE6-only site during the day, and weeping when you compare it to the modern internet that you use in the evenings.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      Corporate IT managers think (rightly or wrongly; probably some of both) that they benefit from fewer browser updates. And to some degree, other folks in corporate IT... developers also prefer targeting fewer browser variations, etc. Perhaps they don't prefer it more highly than their preference for being able to write to modern standards, but when you're into user testing and there's two weeks left on your deadline, you hate to have to spend a lot of time dealing with the fact that it turns out that you have more versions of browsers out there than you thought and they don't all deal with your shiny new web app in the same way. It also sucks to have to deal with calls that the z in Firefox x.y.z broke your app that you weren't expecting to spend any money on maintaining this month.
      - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
        you hate to have to spend a lot of time dealing with the fact that it turns out that you have more versions of browsers out there than you thought But there are effectively only 2 versions of firefox in play on this day today: 3.6.10 : The current release 4.0b : The current beta And you can tell the people on 4.0b that it's their problem for using a beta.
- Encosia 16y ago
  Problem is, the "threat" of uncontrolled update rollouts significantly hampers adoption in many large organizations (which is where the majority of IE6 laggards are located).