12 ms·

"Support cost" doesn't apply only to customer support.

by sosborn 12y ago

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Go on, I'm interested - what extra cost do Google have if I use the same service in FF as I would otherwise have to switch over to Chrome to use; given that they say up front that other browsers aren't supported and that this is a beta so expected to be shonky. What cost is there? If I've switched UA string Google might not even be able to tell, without actively seeking out the information, that other browsers are using it - how then could that be an extra cost? School me, please.
- sosborn 12y ago
  It takes resources (mainly developer time) to ensure that an application is working properly on multiple browsers. If you read the article you can see that a simple UA string change does not fix the problem.
  - msandford 12y ago
    There's a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "actively blocking non-Chrome browsers by means more invasive than UA checking" Remember, there isn't any kind of really legitimate API for 100% determining which browser you're running in. There's a lot of ad-hoc methods which usually work. These folks spent extra effort to block it from even TRYING to run in FireFox. How are the FireFox devs supposed to see the bad performance that they need to fix for Inbox to work right if they can't run it at all?
    - sosborn 12y ago
      There is also a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "you have to actively disable CSP (a global setting) for it to work in Firefox." Also, with respect to performance, this comment in the article might shed some light: "Also see Bugzilla entry. The use of spare arrays with huge indexes was a performance issue in Firefox. It's been fixed in Inbox and in FF but not shipped in FF yet. (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)"
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    But we're specifically talking about not hobbling other browsers not supporting them - you (or whoever) said that there are still support costs even when a browser isn't being "supported" (ie enabled to operate with a site at a suitable level).
    - sosborn 12y ago
      Did you read the part in the article about CSP?
- Touche 12y ago
  Even if they don't support customers they still have to support internal customers (everyone that works for Google). I worked on a project recently that didn't support IE8. Nevertheless, the day after release there were a ton of emails from one particular office that the site didn't work. There was a bit of a panic, various theories thrown out (it's working for everyone else, why is it not working for this office, networking issues?). A couple of hours (and who knows how much money) was wasted in an all-hand-on-deck meeting to fix the issue before it was found out that this particular office had an IT department that only allowed XP+IE8 machines. When you get bug reports from internal customers it's never "the site isn't working in Firefox 33 with all extensions turned off. It loads but is a little slow.". The bug report you get is simply "it isn't working, you get a blank page". Answering those types of emails cost real money.

"Support cost" doesn't apply only to customer support.

by sosborn 12y ago

"Support cost" doesn't apply only to customer support.

Go on, I'm interested - what extra cost do Google have if I use the same service in FF as I would otherwise have to switch over to Chrome to use; given that they say up front that other browsers aren't supported and that this is a beta so expected to be shonky. What cost is there? If I've switched UA string Google might not even be able to tell, without actively seeking out the information, that other browsers are using it - how then could that be an extra cost? School me, please.

sosborn 12y ago
It takes resources (mainly developer time) to ensure that an application is working properly on multiple browsers. If you read the article you can see that a simple UA string change does not fix the problem.
- msandford 12y ago
  There's a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "actively blocking non-Chrome browsers by means more invasive than UA checking" Remember, there isn't any kind of really legitimate API for 100% determining which browser you're running in. There's a lot of ad-hoc methods which usually work. These folks spent extra effort to block it from even TRYING to run in FireFox. How are the FireFox devs supposed to see the bad performance that they need to fix for Inbox to work right if they can't run it at all?
  - sosborn 12y ago
    There is also a big difference between "provided a degraded experience in non-Chrome browsers" and "you have to actively disable CSP (a global setting) for it to work in Firefox." Also, with respect to performance, this comment in the article might shed some light: "Also see Bugzilla entry. The use of spare arrays with huge indexes was a performance issue in Firefox. It's been fixed in Inbox and in FF but not shipped in FF yet. (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1087963)"
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  But we're specifically talking about not hobbling other browsers not supporting them - you (or whoever) said that there are still support costs even when a browser isn't being "supported" (ie enabled to operate with a site at a suitable level).
  - sosborn 12y ago
    Did you read the part in the article about CSP?
Touche 12y ago
Even if they don't support customers they still have to support internal customers (everyone that works for Google). I worked on a project recently that didn't support IE8. Nevertheless, the day after release there were a ton of emails from one particular office that the site didn't work. There was a bit of a panic, various theories thrown out (it's working for everyone else, why is it not working for this office, networking issues?). A couple of hours (and who knows how much money) was wasted in an all-hand-on-deck meeting to fix the issue before it was found out that this particular office had an IT department that only allowed XP+IE8 machines. When you get bug reports from internal customers it's never "the site isn't working in Firefox 33 with all extensions turned off. It loads but is a little slow.". The bug report you get is simply "it isn't working, you get a blank page". Answering those types of emails cost real money.