>It's well documented that the technical debt you accumulate from prototyping and supporting only one platform is extremely significant; to the point where many

>It's well documented that the technical debt you accumulate from prototyping and supporting only one platform is extremely significant; to the point where many people never go back and fix / rework / remake products. Maybe in GUI applications, but not so much in web browser applications. >If you plan to support cross platform, do so from the start. You are already close to automatically supporting all platforms. The point of "not supporting" a browser, is to avoid tedious and time consuming testing of said browser, because CSS and JS works differently in every browser (although close to the same in webkit browsers like chrome and safari). >I've literally only ever heard this sort of ridiculous rhetoric from people who've never suffered through retroactively having to go back and support additional platforms. Again, your arguments might apply to a OS application, but not to web browser "applications". Generally, I also subscribe to the mindset of: make it right for one OS. Instead of: make it shit for all OSs, but usable. Finally. Going out of your way to support platforms that _might_ be used, for an application that you don't really know if people will use in the first hand, is absolutely idiotic. You need to know how, why and if people actually will use it, before spending time and money on supporting multiple platforms/browsers. Just to finish of, >I've literally only ever heard this sort of ridiculous rhetoric from people who've never suffered through... I've literally only heard this from people that have never developed for multiple platforms, and expect that "once it works on X, it must work on Y". It just isn't so. Implementations, however neat, always differ in GUI-land.