3 ms·

As others have pointed out, IE is a poster child. There are many, many outdated browser versions and devices beside IE. If you have 200 million users, 0.25% is

As others have pointed out, IE is a poster child. There are many, many outdated browser versions and devices beside IE. If you have 200 million users, 0.25% is 500 000 people. You may think it's not much, but most cities on Earth have fewer people than that. And it's 0.25% IE, and 0.25% QQ, and 0.25% that Samsung browser from 2014, and... And suddenly you have 5 million people using outdated browsers. And when it comes to government agencies, "afford" does not mean "profit" because you can't measure everything in terms of profit. And no, not every "boomer" has the money to upgrade their 2012 Android phone bought for them by their kids. And not every millenial sports the latest iPhone. Etc. --- start quote --- In the middle, a young woman sits on a hard plastic chair. She is surrounded by canvas-bags containing her worldly possessions. She doesn't look like she is in a great emotional place right now. Clutched in her hands is a games console - a PlayStation Portable... Walking behind her, I glance at her console and recognise the screen she's on. She's connected to the complementary WiFi and is browsing the GOV.UK pages on Housing Benefit. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiveness-of-simple-html/ https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven... --- end quote --- There's a reason ADA exists: it's because people only view everything through the lenses of "how much profit do I get from these people even if I am government"

rcarr 4y ago
> If you have 200 million users, 0.25% is 500 000 people. You may think it's not much, but most cities on Earth have fewer people than that. And it's 0.25% IE, and 0.25% QQ, and 0.25% that Samsung browser from 2014, and... And suddenly you have 5 million people using outdated browsers. Yes but I’m still not convinced it makes economic sense for companies to support those users. Those users are signalling a clear aversion to technology and technology purchases. So how many sales or subscriptions are they getting from those 5 million people? Because a 0.5% conversion rate on 5 million people is 25,000 sales. Is that worth it for a company of that size and does it cover the development and management costs? And I see what you’re saying about access for governments sites but the government routinely hires contractors for £500 or more a day and the cost of a new iPad is £369. You would probably save more money loaning people on benefits a bottom of the range ipad and just supporting safari and chrome rather than throwing manpower and money supporting old browsers. Everyone involved gets a better experience (other than the contractors who aren’t needed any more).
- dmitriid 4y ago
  "I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported).
  - rcarr 4y ago
    > I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. I'm certainly not rich. I've yet to earn a salary in any given year that was above the median in my country. I've had to start from nothing and claw my way to where I am today. What I did however see, was that technology was going to dominate life in the future so I invested the money I did have in good quality Apple products, starting with second hand products until I could afford to buy brand new. But you know, feel free to carry on making assumptions about the internet strangers you chat with. > No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. Which would make a lot more sense than spreading yourself thin and wasting resources on each crappy built-in browser made by every TV company. Every time Smart TVs come up on HN the general consensus is don't connect it to the internet, don't update the firmware and use a proper external device for Smart TV functionality. Because TV companies suck at software the same way car companies do. > As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported). Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. What do you think happens to the existing computers owned by the government? Are they just never updated or replaced? Are they all still running Windows XP? The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything.

rcarr 4y ago

> If you have 200 million users, 0.25% is 500 000 people. You may think it's not much, but most cities on Earth have fewer people than that. And it's 0.25% IE, and 0.25% QQ, and 0.25% that Samsung browser from 2014, and... And suddenly you have 5 million people using outdated browsers. Yes but I’m still not convinced it makes economic sense for companies to support those users. Those users are signalling a clear aversion to technology and technology purchases. So how many sales or subscriptions are they getting from those 5 million people? Because a 0.5% conversion rate on 5 million people is 25,000 sales. Is that worth it for a company of that size and does it cover the development and management costs? And I see what you’re saying about access for governments sites but the government routinely hires contractors for £500 or more a day and the cost of a new iPad is £369. You would probably save more money loaning people on benefits a bottom of the range ipad and just supporting safari and chrome rather than throwing manpower and money supporting old browsers. Everyone involved gets a better experience (other than the contractors who aren’t needed any more).

dmitriid 4y ago
"I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported).
- rcarr 4y ago
  > I'm young and rich, and I can't understand why the rest of the world caters to other people than me" is a position, for sure. I'm certainly not rich. I've yet to earn a salary in any given year that was above the median in my country. I've had to start from nothing and claw my way to where I am today. What I did however see, was that technology was going to dominate life in the future so I invested the money I did have in good quality Apple products, starting with second hand products until I could afford to buy brand new. But you know, feel free to carry on making assumptions about the internet strangers you chat with. > No matter how amazingly technologically savvy you are, if your smart TV is more than just three years old, it's already running a deprecated browser that in all likelihood never be updated. And nearly all apps on modern smart TVs run in the browser, so yes, companies will have to support that (if their apps run on those TVs. Think Netflix, Spotify, even probably Apple's integration with Samsung). Not really. Said companies could just refuse to support them and only develop for Apple TV, Firestick and Chromecast. Which would make a lot more sense than spreading yourself thin and wasting resources on each crappy built-in browser made by every TV company. Every time Smart TVs come up on HN the general consensus is don't connect it to the internet, don't update the firmware and use a proper external device for Smart TV functionality. Because TV companies suck at software the same way car companies do. > As for governments, you assume that it's only "people on benefits" that use outdated or deprecated technology. No, but you implied that the reason why people couldn't access them was monetary. If people aren't on benefits, then presumably they have enough money to purchase a second hand iPhone or Android that can run chrome for less than £100. > And you assume that governments will run through acquiring and updating millions of iPads once every few years. Because iPads and browsers on those iPads also get deprecated (a 7 year old iPad Pro while fully functional is no longer supported). Yes, if it is economically cheaper to do. What do you think happens to the existing computers owned by the government? Are they just never updated or replaced? Are they all still running Windows XP? The basic truth is that it is simply uneconomical to support everything.