6 ms·

I'm quite grateful to Google for this. As a web developer, I'd always hoped that some big industry player would start forcing people to use modern browsers, and

by jarrett 15y ago

I'm quite grateful to Google for this. As a web developer, I'd always hoped that some big industry player would start forcing people to use modern browsers, and now it's happening. As small players, dropping support for older browsers kind of pulls us into the morass of a Nash equilibrium. Everyone would benefit if all web developers could agree on requiring modern browsers. We'd all be saved the pain of supporting old browsers, and users would upgrade because every site forces them to. But as an individual web developer, I can't very well just make that call and hope others will follow suit. Because until everyone else does the same, I'm stuck telling my clients they're giving up visitors with older browsers "for the greater good." Not workable. So my current best strategy is to support older browsers, and the same is true for each other developer. Yet as a whole industry, we'd be way better off dropping old browsers. But a huge player like Google can afford to do it unilaterally. And when they do, they create an opportunity for countless small developers like me to do the same. I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon just yet. I plan to embrace this cautiously. We still don't know when it will be safe for freelancers and small companies to drop IE 7 and other dinosaurs. But I predict that day will come much sooner thanks to Google.

eiji 15y ago
Lets put this into perspective: We are talking about Google-Apps, not Search! Marketshare is very small, and a company even considering working with GApps will not do so with IE7 anyway. Wake me up when Google is dropping GMail support for IE7. Now that would be a story.
- melling 15y ago
  This includes Gmail.
  - edanm 15y ago
    That's misleading. Google Apps has Google in it, but (unless I missed something) GMail as a seperate product is not what is talked about here.
    - magicalist 15y ago
      according to this help doc (which points to the original blog post announcement), they're moving gmail to this same support system: https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6557 https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...
cypherpunks 15y ago
As a web user, I'm not grateful. I don't think having more pixel-perfect control or slightly faster JavaScript makes the web any better. All websites look slightly better, but the client side dies a little bit every time. In the web circa '96, anyone could write a web spider or web browser, and everyone did. There was tremendous innovation both client-side and server-side. Client-side innovations included things like search engines and Google. With the hyper-AJAXed world, client-side innovation becomes impossible. I don't think this is a net win for the world.
- maratd 15y ago
  > I don't think having more pixel-perfect control or slightly faster JavaScript makes the web any better. If that's all it was, then you'd be right. You can't do geolocation, local storage, audio/video, canvas/svg/webgl, etc. etc. on old browsers. It's not about making things pretty. It's about creating software that can compete with desktop alternatives.
  - eropple 15y ago
    Unspoken assumption: that competing with desktop alternatives is good or desired. Personally, I can't think of a single desktop application that I use that is better done in a browser with the possible exception of Google Maps, and I say "possible" because I haven't seen a desktop contender. I use GMail's web interface solely because I can't stand any of the Mac clients (at work) and Outlook isn't available on Linux (which a couple of my PCs at home run). It is cross-platform, which is a plus; it is painfully ugly and slower than a desktop alternative, which is an overwhelming minus. I greatly prefer my web browser to be for browsing the web. While I'm all for standards in HTML/CSS/JS, I find the "web browser as your OS!" crap to be disheartening. I like things that work, and for the most part, web applications don't.
    - danssig 15y ago
      I share you views. Making a web app is easier for the developer: just one platform to support, no restrictions on implementation, etc. But a desktop app is nicer for the users (the ones we're supposed to care about, right?). In the very best case a web app would be able to function as good as a desktop app. The best case is usually not achieved. Imagine if a person at your job said they had just made a new client app for your business users workflow. When you ask how it's implemented the person says that the GUI itself is just a skin that reads everything from the database. The GUI layout, how the buttons behave, all of it is stored in the database and the actual GUI is nothing more than a kind of platform for what's in the database. I've actually seen this done and the team who did it were sacked, their application deprecated. As far as I know it's still running because the team in charge of replacing it still doesn't completely understand it. But this is what web apps are. Model, view, presenter, they're all stored in the same place. Personally, I prefer having a back end RESTful server with native... shall we say "fit" clients (not fat but not thin either) using it. The browser gets a simplified, default version of the app which has a link to the appropriate native client somewhere visible.
dstein 15y ago
I think they should go further. A more Microsoft-esque thing to do would be if someone is using IE to require the use of Chrome Frame.
- jgroome 15y ago
  So Google should aspire to be more like Microsoft? :/
- politician 15y ago
  No, I think they're doing the right thing here. A firm hand on the backs of people who would otherwise never upgrade, not a punch in the face. Frankly, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people in Redmond that secretly approve this move. Microsoft has to play the role of stabilizer for their enterprise customers (so therefore updates are optional), but I'm certain that they wish their home users could play with the "new fast native Internet."
  - dspillett 15y ago
    > Frankly, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people in Redmond that secretly approve this move. It is no secret. MS themselves have gone as far as putting up "anti"-IE6 sites and not supporting IE6 in their own online office apps. IE7 can't be far behind. IE prior to version 9 is an embarrassment to them compared to IE9 and versions of other browsers from three (or more) years ago and they'd like to sweep them under the carpet and get users running IE9+ ASAP. MS will draw the line at IE8 which Google (and anyone following a similar pattern) may not (they may drop IE8 support soon after IE10 is released if sticking with a "current and previous only" model), as MS won't want to lock off XP+IE8 users (at least until April 2014 when XP with SP3 completely falls out of extended support anyway) because that might further encourage shifting to Firefox or Chrom{e|ium} as an upgrade to IE9 is not possible on XP.
lachlanj 15y ago
I disagree, as a web developer big or small it is your job to set the standards for what the web should be. Small freelancers make up a greater percentage than bigger firms as developers. At very least you should make it known that supporting old browsers is not a standard service and will incur extra costs to the client. There is plenty of literature to point your clients to in order to back up your point. If we all do this one by one it will have a greater impact than this move by Google.
santa_boy 15y ago
Agree! Many thanks Google! It is about time this happened. Let Microsoft worry about Skype while the rest of us try to make the WWW more user and developer friendly.

by jarrett 15y ago

eiji 15y ago

Lets put this into perspective: We are talking about Google-Apps, not Search! Marketshare is very small, and a company even considering working with GApps will not do so with IE7 anyway. Wake me up when Google is dropping GMail support for IE7. Now that would be a story.

melling 15y ago
This includes Gmail.
- edanm 15y ago
  That's misleading. Google Apps has Google in it, but (unless I missed something) GMail as a seperate product is not what is talked about here.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    according to this help doc (which points to the original blog post announcement), they're moving gmail to this same support system: https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=6557 https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...

cypherpunks 15y ago

As a web user, I'm not grateful. I don't think having more pixel-perfect control or slightly faster JavaScript makes the web any better. All websites look slightly better, but the client side dies a little bit every time. In the web circa '96, anyone could write a web spider or web browser, and everyone did. There was tremendous innovation both client-side and server-side. Client-side innovations included things like search engines and Google. With the hyper-AJAXed world, client-side innovation becomes impossible. I don't think this is a net win for the world.

maratd 15y ago
> I don't think having more pixel-perfect control or slightly faster JavaScript makes the web any better. If that's all it was, then you'd be right. You can't do geolocation, local storage, audio/video, canvas/svg/webgl, etc. etc. on old browsers. It's not about making things pretty. It's about creating software that can compete with desktop alternatives.
- eropple 15y ago
  Unspoken assumption: that competing with desktop alternatives is good or desired. Personally, I can't think of a single desktop application that I use that is better done in a browser with the possible exception of Google Maps, and I say "possible" because I haven't seen a desktop contender. I use GMail's web interface solely because I can't stand any of the Mac clients (at work) and Outlook isn't available on Linux (which a couple of my PCs at home run). It is cross-platform, which is a plus; it is painfully ugly and slower than a desktop alternative, which is an overwhelming minus. I greatly prefer my web browser to be for browsing the web. While I'm all for standards in HTML/CSS/JS, I find the "web browser as your OS!" crap to be disheartening. I like things that work, and for the most part, web applications don't.
  - danssig 15y ago
    I share you views. Making a web app is easier for the developer: just one platform to support, no restrictions on implementation, etc. But a desktop app is nicer for the users (the ones we're supposed to care about, right?). In the very best case a web app would be able to function as good as a desktop app. The best case is usually not achieved. Imagine if a person at your job said they had just made a new client app for your business users workflow. When you ask how it's implemented the person says that the GUI itself is just a skin that reads everything from the database. The GUI layout, how the buttons behave, all of it is stored in the database and the actual GUI is nothing more than a kind of platform for what's in the database. I've actually seen this done and the team who did it were sacked, their application deprecated. As far as I know it's still running because the team in charge of replacing it still doesn't completely understand it. But this is what web apps are. Model, view, presenter, they're all stored in the same place. Personally, I prefer having a back end RESTful server with native... shall we say "fit" clients (not fat but not thin either) using it. The browser gets a simplified, default version of the app which has a link to the appropriate native client somewhere visible.

dstein 15y ago

I think they should go further. A more Microsoft-esque thing to do would be if someone is using IE to require the use of Chrome Frame.

jgroome 15y ago
So Google should aspire to be more like Microsoft? :/
politician 15y ago
No, I think they're doing the right thing here. A firm hand on the backs of people who would otherwise never upgrade, not a punch in the face. Frankly, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people in Redmond that secretly approve this move. Microsoft has to play the role of stabilizer for their enterprise customers (so therefore updates are optional), but I'm certain that they wish their home users could play with the "new fast native Internet."
- dspillett 15y ago
  > Frankly, I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of people in Redmond that secretly approve this move. It is no secret. MS themselves have gone as far as putting up "anti"-IE6 sites and not supporting IE6 in their own online office apps. IE7 can't be far behind. IE prior to version 9 is an embarrassment to them compared to IE9 and versions of other browsers from three (or more) years ago and they'd like to sweep them under the carpet and get users running IE9+ ASAP. MS will draw the line at IE8 which Google (and anyone following a similar pattern) may not (they may drop IE8 support soon after IE10 is released if sticking with a "current and previous only" model), as MS won't want to lock off XP+IE8 users (at least until April 2014 when XP with SP3 completely falls out of extended support anyway) because that might further encourage shifting to Firefox or Chrom{e|ium} as an upgrade to IE9 is not possible on XP.

lachlanj 15y ago

I disagree, as a web developer big or small it is your job to set the standards for what the web should be. Small freelancers make up a greater percentage than bigger firms as developers. At very least you should make it known that supporting old browsers is not a standard service and will incur extra costs to the client. There is plenty of literature to point your clients to in order to back up your point. If we all do this one by one it will have a greater impact than this move by Google.

santa_boy 15y ago

Agree! Many thanks Google! It is about time this happened. Let Microsoft worry about Skype while the rest of us try to make the WWW more user and developer friendly.