7 ms·

How have we not learned this lesson from when Microsoft did it? Believe it or not, there are still companies that require sites built for them to be compatible

How have we not learned this lesson from when Microsoft did it? Believe it or not, there are still companies that require sites built for them to be compatible with IE7 because that’s what they standardized on and they don’t want to go through the trouble of an upgrade. When you hitch your wagon to the same horse you eventually get left behind.

nothis 8y ago
Microsoft was only held back by their own incompetence. GFWL, Internet Explorer, Zune, Windows mobile, the Microsoft Store,... they had all the power in the world to force that upon us but failed because their products were _so_ bad even non-tech people went through the trouble of finding alternatives. Google, however? Their stuff at least works. They never had the luxury to send people through hoops, 3 seconds and people give up on the web. So that’s what makes Google so scary. They’re omnipresent _and_ competent. My only hope ist that, as they grow, their products get worse which empowers better competitors.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Tell that to users putting up with the new gmail.
  - ta999903 8y ago
    I had to wait for ~12 seconds after pressing 'Reply'. I gave up and migrated.
  - Zelphyr 8y ago
    Agreed. Google is already doing things to make their products bad. Companies that size seemingly can’t help it. Maps looks real nice and all but the old version was WAY easier to use. They won’t stop with these changes because they feel like they need to stay relevant and fresh and no amount of user complaining will outweigh their hubris.
mevile 8y ago
I think Slack is actually using standardized tech that hasn't been implemented/or not implemented well in Firefox. Chrome doesn't have an ActiveX analogy. Anything you use in Chrome is based on a standard, although some, like the directory traversal, are standards that never saw completion and exist only because Chrome kind of jumped the gun and can't remove those things now.
- Yoric 8y ago
  Well, it's not ActiveX, but Google has been known (and is still known) to use a number of non-standards (often, as you point out, could-have-been-standards-but-weren't) in their own web properties, locking away non-Chrome users. Last time I checked, this was still the case with Google Hangouts, for instance, which used non-standard WebRTC. I don't know about Slack specifically, but third parties have been known to follow suit.
  - mevile 8y ago
    WebRTC is a standard... https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/
timrichard 8y ago
There are some similarities, but it's not an identical situation. When IE6 was parked and browsers were considered 'done', it was a closed source monolith tightly coupled to the dominant OS. Today Chromium is open source, even if Chrome isn't, and browsers are used on a greater variety of operating systems. Just as it's common for an owner of a new Mac or PC to install Chrome as a first task, there are no technical reasons why something else couldn't be the dominant choice - just familiarity and inertia. Those things change. The other reason things are slightly different is because of better compliance with Web standards. For a web developer in the late 90's, it was easy to get drawn in to using Microsoft's proprietary tinkering with the DOM (only now are they able to resist the temptation to EEE, probably not through choice or natural instinct). Browsers now put much more emphasis on standards compliance, making web site and app portability common and expected.
- bad_user 8y ago
  The fact that Chromium is open source is completely irrelevant. Fact of the matter is that Google controls its development, which means that whatever they push in Chrome becomes a de facto standard. DRM for HTML to prevent ads from being blocked? Sure. Want to bet it will happen due to Google and Chrome? We've got the same situation with Android too. That AOSP is open source is completely irrelevant, it's still a Google controlled monopoly, nobody can fork it due to the massive resources required and Google can effectively coerce phone makers into doing whatever they want via the threat of blocking access to Google Play. The blind spot and double standard people have for Chrome and Android is huge. --- Also, do you know what's most hilarious? People switching to Chromium-derived browsers to get away from Google. I can almost hear the evil laugh from Mountain View.
  - timrichard 8y ago
    Run Firefox on Cyanogenmod. Sites will still work. > Fact of the matter is that Google controls its development, which means that whatever they push in Chrome becomes a de facto standard. Which is why webp, webm, Amp has dominated over other standards? > Want to bet it will happen Weak speculation. The context under discussion was "fully taken over yet", and "dominant".
Eridrus 8y ago
The only reason Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox got a foothold was that IE6 was basically abandoned and there was so much low hanging fruit (Tabs! Ad blockers!). But then Firefox got complacent with their performance, giving Chrome an in, and in the meantime IE/Edge got a lot better, so there is less incentive to try something else. At this point, Firefox doesn't really solve any pain points for most users. Some people like the greater flexibility Firefox has (had?) with extensions, some people care about the anti-tracking work they're doing, but at this point the selling point seems to be an abstract notion of competition/freedom, which most people don't really care about. Firefox needs a vision of what is missing from the browser that really resonates with people. They seem to be banking on the idea that privacy is that differentiator, and it's smart in the sense that it's not a direction that Google will go with Chrome, but all signs point to people not actually caring that much about privacy. My personal take is that Firefox should really invest heavily in their Android browser (e.g. improve reliability of the media stack, get e10s, etc), build in an ad blocker, or bundle uBlock in the default install, and market that. Chrome will never ship an ad blocker on Android, and blocking ads is far more of a thing people care about than privacy. [EDIT]: Maybe all the Rust stuff will pay off and Firefox will have a really good performance/security(battery life?) story. That would be a good path as well.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  Are you describing a situation where Firefox should be the dominant one instead of Chrome?
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    I don't have a strong opinion on what the market share of various browsers should be, but I don't think "we're a competing implementation that exists to keep Google/Apple/Microsoft honest" is really enough of a reason for most people to care about it. If Firefox wants to see their usage grow, they need to be providing a real value proposition to users, because there are real costs for users of using software with low adoption numbers, e.g. in compatibility & support.
    - 8y ago

nothis 8y ago

Microsoft was only held back by their own incompetence. GFWL, Internet Explorer, Zune, Windows mobile, the Microsoft Store,... they had all the power in the world to force that upon us but failed because their products were _so_ bad even non-tech people went through the trouble of finding alternatives. Google, however? Their stuff at least works. They never had the luxury to send people through hoops, 3 seconds and people give up on the web. So that’s what makes Google so scary. They’re omnipresent _and_ competent. My only hope ist that, as they grow, their products get worse which empowers better competitors.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cimmanom 8y ago
Tell that to users putting up with the new gmail.
- ta999903 8y ago
  I had to wait for ~12 seconds after pressing 'Reply'. I gave up and migrated.
- Zelphyr 8y ago
  Agreed. Google is already doing things to make their products bad. Companies that size seemingly can’t help it. Maps looks real nice and all but the old version was WAY easier to use. They won’t stop with these changes because they feel like they need to stay relevant and fresh and no amount of user complaining will outweigh their hubris.

mevile 8y ago

I think Slack is actually using standardized tech that hasn't been implemented/or not implemented well in Firefox. Chrome doesn't have an ActiveX analogy. Anything you use in Chrome is based on a standard, although some, like the directory traversal, are standards that never saw completion and exist only because Chrome kind of jumped the gun and can't remove those things now.

Yoric 8y ago
Well, it's not ActiveX, but Google has been known (and is still known) to use a number of non-standards (often, as you point out, could-have-been-standards-but-weren't) in their own web properties, locking away non-Chrome users. Last time I checked, this was still the case with Google Hangouts, for instance, which used non-standard WebRTC. I don't know about Slack specifically, but third parties have been known to follow suit.
- mevile 8y ago
  WebRTC is a standard... https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/

timrichard 8y ago

There are some similarities, but it's not an identical situation. When IE6 was parked and browsers were considered 'done', it was a closed source monolith tightly coupled to the dominant OS. Today Chromium is open source, even if Chrome isn't, and browsers are used on a greater variety of operating systems. Just as it's common for an owner of a new Mac or PC to install Chrome as a first task, there are no technical reasons why something else couldn't be the dominant choice - just familiarity and inertia. Those things change. The other reason things are slightly different is because of better compliance with Web standards. For a web developer in the late 90's, it was easy to get drawn in to using Microsoft's proprietary tinkering with the DOM (only now are they able to resist the temptation to EEE, probably not through choice or natural instinct). Browsers now put much more emphasis on standards compliance, making web site and app portability common and expected.

bad_user 8y ago
The fact that Chromium is open source is completely irrelevant. Fact of the matter is that Google controls its development, which means that whatever they push in Chrome becomes a de facto standard. DRM for HTML to prevent ads from being blocked? Sure. Want to bet it will happen due to Google and Chrome? We've got the same situation with Android too. That AOSP is open source is completely irrelevant, it's still a Google controlled monopoly, nobody can fork it due to the massive resources required and Google can effectively coerce phone makers into doing whatever they want via the threat of blocking access to Google Play. The blind spot and double standard people have for Chrome and Android is huge. --- Also, do you know what's most hilarious? People switching to Chromium-derived browsers to get away from Google. I can almost hear the evil laugh from Mountain View.
- timrichard 8y ago
  Run Firefox on Cyanogenmod. Sites will still work. > Fact of the matter is that Google controls its development, which means that whatever they push in Chrome becomes a de facto standard. Which is why webp, webm, Amp has dominated over other standards? > Want to bet it will happen Weak speculation. The context under discussion was "fully taken over yet", and "dominant".

Eridrus 8y ago

The only reason Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox got a foothold was that IE6 was basically abandoned and there was so much low hanging fruit (Tabs! Ad blockers!). But then Firefox got complacent with their performance, giving Chrome an in, and in the meantime IE/Edge got a lot better, so there is less incentive to try something else. At this point, Firefox doesn't really solve any pain points for most users. Some people like the greater flexibility Firefox has (had?) with extensions, some people care about the anti-tracking work they're doing, but at this point the selling point seems to be an abstract notion of competition/freedom, which most people don't really care about. Firefox needs a vision of what is missing from the browser that really resonates with people. They seem to be banking on the idea that privacy is that differentiator, and it's smart in the sense that it's not a direction that Google will go with Chrome, but all signs point to people not actually caring that much about privacy. My personal take is that Firefox should really invest heavily in their Android browser (e.g. improve reliability of the media stack, get e10s, etc), build in an ad blocker, or bundle uBlock in the default install, and market that. Chrome will never ship an ad blocker on Android, and blocking ads is far more of a thing people care about than privacy. [EDIT]: Maybe all the Rust stuff will pay off and Firefox will have a really good performance/security(battery life?) story. That would be a good path as well.

bdcravens 8y ago
Are you describing a situation where Firefox should be the dominant one instead of Chrome?
- Eridrus 8y ago
  I don't have a strong opinion on what the market share of various browsers should be, but I don't think "we're a competing implementation that exists to keep Google/Apple/Microsoft honest" is really enough of a reason for most people to care about it. If Firefox wants to see their usage grow, they need to be providing a real value proposition to users, because there are real costs for users of using software with low adoption numbers, e.g. in compatibility & support.
  - 8y ago