5 ms·

Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that t

Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? There's been this largely ridiculous "revenge of the geeks" after the IE6 days. Now we've fed so much fuel into that fire, that casually telling people to use different browsers is the norm. I'm not saying I told you so, but.. I told you so. Instead of focusing on your customers' needs, we just ran with what's popular. That's always going to be a losing strategy.

jimktrains2 12y ago
“Anyone who slaps a ‘this page is best viewed with Browser X’ label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.” – Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)
- johnkpush 12y ago
  It's browser vendors that are bearing the torch of interoperability and standards compliance. Unfortunately, most vendors are companies with their own agenda. To add to that, all companies and people interpret standards differently. Given this, it's no wonder we don't see consistent api implementation and behaviors between browsers. The aftermath of all of this falls on the developer's shoulders, which is why so many hours are poured into getting a modern webapp to work across all browsers. Resources are limited, and at some point, developers have to throw their hands up and resign from having support across all browsers. When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have? Should we continue to stifle innovation while we wait for the browser vendor to reach compliance? History shows you're going to be waiting for a while, or for ever.
  - dblohm7 12y ago
    "When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have?" File bugs. Chromium and Firefox are not black boxes.
    - jfoster 12y ago
      Very often the bugs have been filed by someone else. Years ago. A few examples that come to mind: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=67587 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=67587 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102914 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
    - ndesaulniers 12y ago
      or here's an opportunity to start contributing to open source!
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    One option is to ensure that functionality you're relying on can fall back if the feature isn't enabled. While that's not the hip-and-cool thing to do, it is a very valid option and doesn't take considerable time if it's a goal from the outset.
ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Yup. Holding a ten-year grudge against Microsoft is going to bite people in the end.
- TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
  I'm still nursing a 20-year grudge against them, yet find myself gainfully employed doing .NET application development again. There's being observantly pessimistic, and there's tilting at windmills.
higherpurpose 12y ago
There were good reasons for not supporting IE because they weren't adhering to standards. That's not the case with Firefox. That was closer to saying "we shouldn't support Chrome because it breaks standards" than "we shouldn't support Firefox because it has small market share". The main reason for not supporting IE was its anti-standards stance, not its market share. I think that's a perfectly valid reason, just like saying "I don't want to support Chrome because of its promotion of DRM in browsers".
- nulagrithom 12y ago
  Exactly. Internet Explorer was very far behind and failed to adhere to standards. This sentiment largely disappeared with the release of IE10, and I've seen more people defend IE11 than anything else.
- scholia 12y ago
  See my comment above https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9029208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9029208 It's simply not true that IE wasn't adhering to standards, or had an "anti-standards stance". It is true that IE6 didn't support standards that were developed after it was released, but that's also true of every program released (until it's updated). Not saying Microsoft didn't make mistakes, but that wasn't one of them ;-)
kenbellows 12y ago
There is potentially a critical difference here. The "We don't support IE" mini-movement was a reaction to Microsoft's refusal to use the web standards that every other major browser supported. In this case, it appears to me (admittedly without research) that Google's motivations must be different, and two possibilities spring to mind: (1) Google doesn't like the competition from Firefox or (2) the Play store uses non-standard features not supported by Firefox's overwhelmingly standards compliant browser. If either of these is the case, we've got a very different situation, potentially one in which Google has begun to play the part of Microsoft, implementing and using their own non-standard features, even if it's in a less intrusive and less inconvenient way.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  'every other' turned into one or two. But anyway.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Not really. Since IE10 a lot of the standards argument has been bunk and I've run into a lot of sites lately that tell me, "Oh this html5 feature is only on Chrome, so use that" when I use Firefox. Or if I'm using IE11 for work, suddenly I hit a site that either tells me to get lost or warns me that I'll get a better experience with Chrome. The problem is we let web culture degenerate into a "my browser or the highway" attitude thanks to the fuel uber-geeks poured on the IE6 fire. Now we're constantly reaping this negativity. I won't even go into the issues I've had with Opera, AOSP browser, dolphin, midori, and others. This "my browser or the highway" attitude is still very strong and we need to stop pretending its a legitimate way to manage the web. No wonder people are clamoring for walled-garden app stores and dumbed down apps. Maybe they're sick of the geek-led browser wars that flare up every so often. Google knows this and is using this to its advantage with its long-range plan to lock people onto its proprietary Android-based services. Now here's another reason to not use Firefox and to stick with Chrome.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    I hate to repeat this, but it's just not true. I see far, far less "use this browser" enforcement that used to be prevalent on the web. Yes – some advanced demos are Chrome- or FireFox– only in particular, but using these as a yardstick to measure the web in general is broken.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? You're not really giving the whole story here. A lot of people slapped a 'Don't use IE, it's old and broken message" on their sites because it was old and broken. Generally this didn't show for newer versions – though you're right in that a minor number of 'douch-baggy' sites did. It was a significant and in some cases crippling workload to support end-of-life browsers that were lacking features such as e.g. transparent image support. Telling users to upgrade was a perfectly sensible thing to do in these cases – if it was suitable message for your customer base. These days the situation is very different. There's almost definitely no way that the Play store doesn't work on Firefox. It's almost certainly being deliberately excluded from accessing the Play store for what can only be described as malicious reasons.
- scholia 12y ago
  Exactly right. The big difference is that IE6 was a very old and limited browser -- in fact, Microsoft didn't want people to use it either. It's not the same as blocking a current and very capable browser. UPDATE: Update 9:05 a.m. PT: Google has informed VentureBeat that the issue experienced by Firefox users on Android is a bug, and a fix will be issued “very soon.” http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supports-firefox-for-android-did-the-browser-war-just-get-ugly/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supp...
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  The example I'm discussing was on HN just a few months ago. So when IE11 was active. It wasn't "We arent compatible with IE6" its "Fuck off IE users lol" which is a terrible attitude and one applauded here.
chris_wot 12y ago
The whole point behind not supporting IE was because it was broken. Firefox is largely not broken. That's the difference.

Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? There's been this largely ridiculous "revenge of the geeks" after the IE6 days. Now we've fed so much fuel into that fire, that casually telling people to use different browsers is the norm. I'm not saying I told you so, but.. I told you so. Instead of focusing on your customers' needs, we just ran with what's popular. That's always going to be a losing strategy.

jimktrains2 12y ago

“Anyone who slaps a ‘this page is best viewed with Browser X’ label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.” – Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)

johnkpush 12y ago
It's browser vendors that are bearing the torch of interoperability and standards compliance. Unfortunately, most vendors are companies with their own agenda. To add to that, all companies and people interpret standards differently. Given this, it's no wonder we don't see consistent api implementation and behaviors between browsers. The aftermath of all of this falls on the developer's shoulders, which is why so many hours are poured into getting a modern webapp to work across all browsers. Resources are limited, and at some point, developers have to throw their hands up and resign from having support across all browsers. When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have? Should we continue to stifle innovation while we wait for the browser vendor to reach compliance? History shows you're going to be waiting for a while, or for ever.
- dblohm7 12y ago
  "When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have?" File bugs. Chromium and Firefox are not black boxes.
  - jfoster 12y ago
    Very often the bugs have been filed by someone else. Years ago. A few examples that come to mind: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=67587 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=67587 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=178297 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102914 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102914
  - ndesaulniers 12y ago
    or here's an opportunity to start contributing to open source!
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  One option is to ensure that functionality you're relying on can fall back if the feature isn't enabled. While that's not the hip-and-cool thing to do, it is a very valid option and doesn't take considerable time if it's a goal from the outset.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Yup. Holding a ten-year grudge against Microsoft is going to bite people in the end.

TheRealDunkirk 12y ago
I'm still nursing a 20-year grudge against them, yet find myself gainfully employed doing .NET application development again. There's being observantly pessimistic, and there's tilting at windmills.

higherpurpose 12y ago

There were good reasons for not supporting IE because they weren't adhering to standards. That's not the case with Firefox. That was closer to saying "we shouldn't support Chrome because it breaks standards" than "we shouldn't support Firefox because it has small market share". The main reason for not supporting IE was its anti-standards stance, not its market share. I think that's a perfectly valid reason, just like saying "I don't want to support Chrome because of its promotion of DRM in browsers".

nulagrithom 12y ago
Exactly. Internet Explorer was very far behind and failed to adhere to standards. This sentiment largely disappeared with the release of IE10, and I've seen more people defend IE11 than anything else.
scholia 12y ago
See my comment above https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9029208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9029208 It's simply not true that IE wasn't adhering to standards, or had an "anti-standards stance". It is true that IE6 didn't support standards that were developed after it was released, but that's also true of every program released (until it's updated). Not saying Microsoft didn't make mistakes, but that wasn't one of them ;-)

kenbellows 12y ago

There is potentially a critical difference here. The "We don't support IE" mini-movement was a reaction to Microsoft's refusal to use the web standards that every other major browser supported. In this case, it appears to me (admittedly without research) that Google's motivations must be different, and two possibilities spring to mind: (1) Google doesn't like the competition from Firefox or (2) the Play store uses non-standard features not supported by Firefox's overwhelmingly standards compliant browser. If either of these is the case, we've got a very different situation, potentially one in which Google has begun to play the part of Microsoft, implementing and using their own non-standard features, even if it's in a less intrusive and less inconvenient way.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
'every other' turned into one or two. But anyway.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Not really. Since IE10 a lot of the standards argument has been bunk and I've run into a lot of sites lately that tell me, "Oh this html5 feature is only on Chrome, so use that" when I use Firefox. Or if I'm using IE11 for work, suddenly I hit a site that either tells me to get lost or warns me that I'll get a better experience with Chrome. The problem is we let web culture degenerate into a "my browser or the highway" attitude thanks to the fuel uber-geeks poured on the IE6 fire. Now we're constantly reaping this negativity. I won't even go into the issues I've had with Opera, AOSP browser, dolphin, midori, and others. This "my browser or the highway" attitude is still very strong and we need to stop pretending its a legitimate way to manage the web. No wonder people are clamoring for walled-garden app stores and dumbed down apps. Maybe they're sick of the geek-led browser wars that flare up every so often. Google knows this and is using this to its advantage with its long-range plan to lock people onto its proprietary Android-based services. Now here's another reason to not use Firefox and to stick with Chrome.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  I hate to repeat this, but it's just not true. I see far, far less "use this browser" enforcement that used to be prevalent on the web. Yes – some advanced demos are Chrome- or FireFox– only in particular, but using these as a yardstick to measure the web in general is broken.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? You're not really giving the whole story here. A lot of people slapped a 'Don't use IE, it's old and broken message" on their sites because it was old and broken. Generally this didn't show for newer versions – though you're right in that a minor number of 'douch-baggy' sites did. It was a significant and in some cases crippling workload to support end-of-life browsers that were lacking features such as e.g. transparent image support. Telling users to upgrade was a perfectly sensible thing to do in these cases – if it was suitable message for your customer base. These days the situation is very different. There's almost definitely no way that the Play store doesn't work on Firefox. It's almost certainly being deliberately excluded from accessing the Play store for what can only be described as malicious reasons.

scholia 12y ago
Exactly right. The big difference is that IE6 was a very old and limited browser -- in fact, Microsoft didn't want people to use it either. It's not the same as blocking a current and very capable browser. UPDATE: Update 9:05 a.m. PT: Google has informed VentureBeat that the issue experienced by Firefox users on Android is a bug, and a fix will be issued “very soon.” http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supports-firefox-for-android-did-the-browser-war-just-get-ugly/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supp...
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
The example I'm discussing was on HN just a few months ago. So when IE11 was active. It wasn't "We arent compatible with IE6" its "Fuck off IE users lol" which is a terrible attitude and one applauded here.

chris_wot 12y ago

The whole point behind not supporting IE was because it was broken. Firefox is largely not broken. That's the difference.