6 ms·

Chrome is the new Internet Explorer: companies and developers lazily optimize for it, and users (and developers) suffer the consequences.

intrasight 6y ago
Is always issue of "lazy". If you have limited resources, it makes sense to develop for only one platform.
- unknown2374 6y ago
  The platform is the web, not the browsers themselves. The web is an open platform, while some browser push for proprietary features. This is not like Windows vs Linux where each of those OSes are separate platforms, and supporting both can be difficult.
  - mgkimsal 6y ago
    supporting multiple browsers can be difficult. if you push out some purist code that is "supposed" to work to some spec, but it doesn't work... you have to start making decisions about which path forward to take. outside pure code, you still have to deal with testing/verifying/confirming, then committing to that for each version of the browser on multiple platforms. Providing actual strong positive and ongoing support for your system on specific browsers and platforms is generally better than "well... we wrote to the published spec, the problem is every browser vendor sucks and they need to conform to my understanding of specs". That ain't gonna happen. To be clear, I don't think most companies actually put a lot of effort behind their 'support' of just one browser (years ago when it was IE, now when it's chrome).
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    If the platform is the web, but a standards-compliant site can work in Chrome but not Firefox, the issue isn't standards compliance. And it's up to the individual site author whether retaining that last chunk of Firefox-only (or Edge-only, or Safari-only) users is worth the cash outlay to test on those platforms. I've done multi-browser development; it adds significant friction to the process, especially if one's testing infrastructure is rocky (and most are, and it costs resources to do better than rocky).
- modo_mario 6y ago
  Yes that is lazy. If you develop for the web following proper web-standards chances are it should work on other browsers. This ain't the days of
- intrasight 6y ago
  Spellchecker misfire. I'd mean to say "not an issue of lazy". As a sole developer of some commercial apps, I have often said "This is an IE app" or "This is a Chrome app". The business user of the app gets no added benefit from potentially twice the price of development to have it be cross-browser.
criddell 6y ago
The big difference is that Internet Explorer wasn't very good. There suffering was a lot worse. Edit: Everybody below is right - I'm thinking only of the version they let stagnate. It as relatively good early on.
- josteink 6y ago
  Nonsense. At the time MSIE was the best, the fastest and most featured (API wise) which is why people started developing for it exclusively. Do you see a recognisable pattern here? Do you get a sense of deja vu?
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    MSIE also implemented some of the standards completely opposite of how they were described in the standards. So making something work with MSIE wasn't just about features it had, but the hassle of making two versions: one to deal with IE's bugs and the other for everyone else. Given IE's install base (essentially every system with Windows, which means greater than 90 or 95% of computer users at one point), it made sense to skip support for other browsers.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      "In 1998 the Web Standards Project compiled a list of IE's many CSS failings, including this one. Every browser had CSS bugs, however, so this wasn't particularly bad. They made a similar list for Opera and declined to make a list for Firefox's ancestor Netscape claiming that 'trying to list the important bugs would be an exercise in writing long documents'." https://www.jefftk.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-ie-box-model https://www.jefftk.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-ie-box-model
  - youeseh 6y ago
    It was the most popular because people had to download the others themselves. It was also non-standard, so you often had to make a choice: whether to expend resources to build it for IE because it is most popular and not not worry about the rest, or "do the right thing" and use standards and then write more code to support IE as well.
tdy_err 6y ago
If you've got some spare change to contribute… Browserlist -a tool for developers to target multiple browsers for compatibility– is in need of donations: https://browserl.ist https://browserl.ist Also, https://www.patreon.com/caniuse https://www.patreon.com/caniuse https://opencollective.com/babel https://opencollective.com/babel
benbristow 6y ago
Most browsers are based on Chrome/Blink or at the very least WebKit now. Even Microsoft have thrown in the towel for the better as the new Edge is awesome. The only outlier nowadays is really Firefox/Gecko but they do a good job of keeping to standard, it's rare to find a site that doesn't work with it.
- ilikepi 6y ago
  And Safari, which is not insignificant if you're including mobile platforms.
  - benbristow 6y ago
    Hence the mention of WebKit which Safari uses.
    - ilikepi 6y ago
      Apologies. That's what I get for posting while distracted from a conference call.
- detritus 6y ago
  I dunno - I hit a site a week that doesn't work in Firefox. The latest being a list of shows on https://www.bfi.org.uk/ https://www.bfi.org.uk/ that didn't … well, list. Turns out it did fine enough in Chrome. I accept that sites can be 'optimised' for use in certain browsers, but a complete lack of functionality is fundamentally anti-web and a sign of sloppy development. - ed url changed to correct one
  - wldcordeiro 6y ago
    Almost always the sites that don't work in Firefox tend to do things in Chrome specific ways.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Any idea if the issue in BFI's website is the site or Firefox's implementation of the standard?
skybrian 6y ago
It's free and runs nearly everywhere, so the consequences don't seem quite the same?
- rebolek 6y ago
  Internet Explorer was also free and run nearly everywhere as Windows were on 98% machines.
  - hackerbrother 6y ago
    I do think it being cross-platform and open-source is a significant difference.
    - rebolek 6y ago
      And I do think that using their market share to push "standards" no-one else agreed on is what actually makes them the new MS/IE. Should Firefox just catch upon what Chrome already has implemented or should the standards be decided by a standard body? You can believe the first one is true, I do not.
      - hackerbrother 6y ago
        I agree with you. All i’m saying is it’s good that Blink isn’t a black box unlike IE.
    - sebazzz 6y ago
      Chrome is not open source. Chromium is - but it is not the exact same build.
- fgonzag 6y ago
  You probably didn't suffer through IE and active X
- mufufu 6y ago
  IE was free as well, didn't prevent it from turning into a pile of garbage when it controlled like 90% market share, which in turn affected everyone (consumers, developers, etc..)
shadowgovt 6y ago
Hypothesis: this will always be true. Standards compliance doesn't guarantee implementation compatibility (because the standards basically never include implementation details or benchmark guarantees), so there will always be cost associated with full browser compatibility in the margins of feature interaction (especially for complicated sites). If the Chrome hegemony breaks down, another hegemony will take its place.
- SilasX 6y ago
  I think it might not have been true if Mozilla hadn't been so poorly managed and sent Firefox on quixotic adventures instead of making it a better browser, without constant feature regressions and bugs involving global, privacy-compromising outages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19871989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19871989
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I can imagine an alternate universe in which the hegemony favors Firefox. The key idea is: the system favors hegemony for someone. The incentives are 1. Most web developers are trying to maximize number of people who can see their site 2. Some browser (barring lock-ins) will have the plurality of users 3. Developers seeking to minimize costs will target the browser with the most users 4. The browser most developers target will be the one most likely to be able to access the most sites 3 and 4 create a positive feedback loop; outside of other forces, we'd assume a browser with any small margin advantage to asymptotically approach full market control over time.

intrasight 6y ago

Is always issue of "lazy". If you have limited resources, it makes sense to develop for only one platform.

unknown2374 6y ago
The platform is the web, not the browsers themselves. The web is an open platform, while some browser push for proprietary features. This is not like Windows vs Linux where each of those OSes are separate platforms, and supporting both can be difficult.
- mgkimsal 6y ago
  supporting multiple browsers can be difficult. if you push out some purist code that is "supposed" to work to some spec, but it doesn't work... you have to start making decisions about which path forward to take. outside pure code, you still have to deal with testing/verifying/confirming, then committing to that for each version of the browser on multiple platforms. Providing actual strong positive and ongoing support for your system on specific browsers and platforms is generally better than "well... we wrote to the published spec, the problem is every browser vendor sucks and they need to conform to my understanding of specs". That ain't gonna happen. To be clear, I don't think most companies actually put a lot of effort behind their 'support' of just one browser (years ago when it was IE, now when it's chrome).
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  If the platform is the web, but a standards-compliant site can work in Chrome but not Firefox, the issue isn't standards compliance. And it's up to the individual site author whether retaining that last chunk of Firefox-only (or Edge-only, or Safari-only) users is worth the cash outlay to test on those platforms. I've done multi-browser development; it adds significant friction to the process, especially if one's testing infrastructure is rocky (and most are, and it costs resources to do better than rocky).
modo_mario 6y ago
Yes that is lazy. If you develop for the web following proper web-standards chances are it should work on other browsers. This ain't the days of
intrasight 6y ago
Spellchecker misfire. I'd mean to say "not an issue of lazy". As a sole developer of some commercial apps, I have often said "This is an IE app" or "This is a Chrome app". The business user of the app gets no added benefit from potentially twice the price of development to have it be cross-browser.

criddell 6y ago

The big difference is that Internet Explorer wasn't very good. There suffering was a lot worse. Edit: Everybody below is right - I'm thinking only of the version they let stagnate. It as relatively good early on.

josteink 6y ago
Nonsense. At the time MSIE was the best, the fastest and most featured (API wise) which is why people started developing for it exclusively. Do you see a recognisable pattern here? Do you get a sense of deja vu?
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  MSIE also implemented some of the standards completely opposite of how they were described in the standards. So making something work with MSIE wasn't just about features it had, but the hassle of making two versions: one to deal with IE's bugs and the other for everyone else. Given IE's install base (essentially every system with Windows, which means greater than 90 or 95% of computer users at one point), it made sense to skip support for other browsers.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    "In 1998 the Web Standards Project compiled a list of IE's many CSS failings, including this one. Every browser had CSS bugs, however, so this wasn't particularly bad. They made a similar list for Opera and declined to make a list for Firefox's ancestor Netscape claiming that 'trying to list the important bugs would be an exercise in writing long documents'." https://www.jefftk.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-ie-box-model https://www.jefftk.com/p/the-revenge-of-the-ie-box-model
- youeseh 6y ago
  It was the most popular because people had to download the others themselves. It was also non-standard, so you often had to make a choice: whether to expend resources to build it for IE because it is most popular and not not worry about the rest, or "do the right thing" and use standards and then write more code to support IE as well.

tdy_err 6y ago

If you've got some spare change to contribute… Browserlist -a tool for developers to target multiple browsers for compatibility– is in need of donations: https://browserl.ist https://browserl.ist Also, https://www.patreon.com/caniuse https://www.patreon.com/caniuse https://opencollective.com/babel https://opencollective.com/babel

benbristow 6y ago

Most browsers are based on Chrome/Blink or at the very least WebKit now. Even Microsoft have thrown in the towel for the better as the new Edge is awesome. The only outlier nowadays is really Firefox/Gecko but they do a good job of keeping to standard, it's rare to find a site that doesn't work with it.

ilikepi 6y ago
And Safari, which is not insignificant if you're including mobile platforms.
- benbristow 6y ago
  Hence the mention of WebKit which Safari uses.
  - ilikepi 6y ago
    Apologies. That's what I get for posting while distracted from a conference call.
detritus 6y ago
I dunno - I hit a site a week that doesn't work in Firefox. The latest being a list of shows on https://www.bfi.org.uk/ https://www.bfi.org.uk/ that didn't … well, list. Turns out it did fine enough in Chrome. I accept that sites can be 'optimised' for use in certain browsers, but a complete lack of functionality is fundamentally anti-web and a sign of sloppy development. - ed url changed to correct one
- wldcordeiro 6y ago
  Almost always the sites that don't work in Firefox tend to do things in Chrome specific ways.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Any idea if the issue in BFI's website is the site or Firefox's implementation of the standard?

skybrian 6y ago

It's free and runs nearly everywhere, so the consequences don't seem quite the same?

rebolek 6y ago
Internet Explorer was also free and run nearly everywhere as Windows were on 98% machines.
- hackerbrother 6y ago
  I do think it being cross-platform and open-source is a significant difference.
  - rebolek 6y ago
    And I do think that using their market share to push "standards" no-one else agreed on is what actually makes them the new MS/IE. Should Firefox just catch upon what Chrome already has implemented or should the standards be decided by a standard body? You can believe the first one is true, I do not.
    - hackerbrother 6y ago
      I agree with you. All i’m saying is it’s good that Blink isn’t a black box unlike IE.
  - sebazzz 6y ago
    Chrome is not open source. Chromium is - but it is not the exact same build.
fgonzag 6y ago
You probably didn't suffer through IE and active X
mufufu 6y ago
IE was free as well, didn't prevent it from turning into a pile of garbage when it controlled like 90% market share, which in turn affected everyone (consumers, developers, etc..)

shadowgovt 6y ago

Hypothesis: this will always be true. Standards compliance doesn't guarantee implementation compatibility (because the standards basically never include implementation details or benchmark guarantees), so there will always be cost associated with full browser compatibility in the margins of feature interaction (especially for complicated sites). If the Chrome hegemony breaks down, another hegemony will take its place.

SilasX 6y ago
I think it might not have been true if Mozilla hadn't been so poorly managed and sent Firefox on quixotic adventures instead of making it a better browser, without constant feature regressions and bugs involving global, privacy-compromising outages: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19871989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19871989
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I can imagine an alternate universe in which the hegemony favors Firefox. The key idea is: the system favors hegemony for someone. The incentives are 1. Most web developers are trying to maximize number of people who can see their site 2. Some browser (barring lock-ins) will have the plurality of users 3. Developers seeking to minimize costs will target the browser with the most users 4. The browser most developers target will be the one most likely to be able to access the most sites 3 and 4 create a positive feedback loop; outside of other forces, we'd assume a browser with any small margin advantage to asymptotically approach full market control over time.