Scobleizer: Microsoft doesn’t support Firefox?
Chris G.
· 3 years ago
Nice to see you talk about this.
I know I automatically avoid Microsoft services these days unless I have no other choice, because most of the time they never work with Firefox or at best, work poorly.
Sure Firefox is somewhere around 10% marketshare, give or take, but you know how big 10% is of the Internet's user base? Your talking 10s of millions of people...if not approaching 100s of millions.
Any company who chooses to avoid that potential customer base size has no clue.
Brook
· 3 years ago
Who though that supporting FireFox and other browsers in general wasn't important?!
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Brook: it's not that they don't think it's important, it's that they put it on a lower priority and are trying to get things out faster.
Increasing the number of clients you need to support increases time to market and increases number of people each team needs.
Brook
· 3 years ago
Maybe the team should have written a more polite message, something like:
"Sorry no FireFox support yet, but we are working on it"
Damien Mulley
· 3 years ago
Why not higher someone that can build webpages that work on all, not just IE, not just IE and Firefox but All? I hadn't realised it was that difficult to do but I've forgotten all my HTML skills of late. Perhaps higher some of the kids out there who make it seem so easy?
Damien Mulley
· 3 years ago
Hire, not higher. D'oh!
Michael Griffiths
· 3 years ago
Robert, please realize iniatives like the one you just suggested are precisely the same thing that makes Microsoft less agile.
Microsoft products are expected to ship in X numer of languages, comply to X quality level, go through N security reviews, etc.
This type of beurocracy increases the overall quality of the software, but reduces time to market.
You need to optimize this. Given MSN/Live's commitment to cross-browser standards AFTER getting it to work in IE, I'm not sure they're sriking the wrong balance.
People pick on Microsoft for the smallest possible reason, and view everything they do in a neative mental framework. Certainly, you need to change that - but it doesn't mean a unilateral rule is the right way.
Incidentally, you're argument about influentials is a good one. But you need to tone down the rhetoric and approach influentials WITHIN Microsoft to get that around. Bring it up when you meet with teams as part of your job on Channel9: "Do you know how many reporters are using Firefox to evaluate your products?"
If you can make the point that cross-browser functionality is a POLITICAL (i.e. PR) argument, and NOT a "overall usefulness" or "necessary" argument, it's much more effective.
Regis
· 3 years ago
>We're sorry. Windows Live Shopping Beta does not yet support Firefox. >We’re working to correct this as soon as possible. That's exactly what we did... Yeah, it sucked to have to cut this to meet our release date, and we did cut other stuff that we wanted even more. And yes, we're working on it right now :)
Sean DALY
· 3 years ago
Why not just build websites to W3C standards? That way you know you are compatible with Mozilla-based browsers.
I myself use IE only to run Windows Update, and I counsel friends and family to not risk financial transactions with IE because of the security issues (over and above the advice I have to give about protecting a Windows computer).
Firefox happens to be the only cross-platform browser, as Microsoft has dropped support on Apple and couldn't care less about GNU/Linux users. Everyday users don't care, but power users who connect to the web with different machines throughout the day like finding the same interface for browsing.
Firefox also offers natively live RSS bookmarks, which I understand will be available in IE sometime in 2007.
Sean DALY.
Andrew
· 3 years ago
Why only Firefox, what about Safari/Opera?
If you want to give me a message that states your site may not display correctly on my browser of choice then that's fine, but at least let me use it as-is.
Rob
· 3 years ago
The need to get things out faster isn't really a valid excuse, though. Everyone else manages it. When Google launches a new product, people would be very surprised if it didn't work on at least IE, Firefox and Safari; with MSN products, one would tend to assume the opposite until proven otherwise. Even design nightmares like Bebo seem to manage to work on most common browsers, broken though they may be in other ways.
dahowlett
· 3 years ago
This is a breath of fresh air Robert - brave- but it begs the question as to whether MSFT sees IE7 as a continuing lock-in plank or whether you're a lone voice. If this kind of discussion is being taken seriously inside MSFT dev, then can you point to others with whom 'we' FF bigots can shoot the breeze? that would be serious, enterprisey goodness.
Doug
· 3 years ago
"Why not just build websites to W3C standards?" - so you don't like 'AJAX' sites then? XMLHTTPRequest isn't a W3C standard yet.
Its an idealistic goal to support all browsers from the get-go, but thankfully things are starting to converge in terms of browser supported features. But it is MS place to innovate (as indeed most developers), and sometimes their own products are best placed to meet those innovations.
I also agree with Michael Griffiths; push this from a PR standpoint, not a techy/geek angle. You claim benefits of aiming towards saatisfying the Fx enthusiasts, but have you weighed the benefits to MS from speedier delivery to 90% of the market?
Nice idea not linking to browser specific sites though.
hypertime
· 3 years ago
Yeah, I guess all those years of leveraging Microsoft's undisputed desktop monopoly for proprietary technology designed to eliminate every viable competitor and to ensure lock-in to in-house products kind of formed some nasty habits.
Jon
· 3 years ago
Nice post Robert. This is one of the few times I agree 100% with you.
I can understand if they don't have 100% cross-browser compatibility within the members area at launch but it is pretty sad that you can't even sign up for the service without using IE.
What could possibly be on a sign up form that makes it technically impossible to use a non-IE browser?
I have a high traffic site I wouldn't mind trying MS's ad center on but this is a big negative mark on the service and I'm not touching it till Firefox is supported. IE-only sites are so 1990s.
Jake
· 3 years ago
So where the development tools teams stand on this?
Aren't they ones writing development tools that generate code that target IE? Using those tools leads to services that target IE and exclude Firefox. If the tools were agnostic, then time to market for service development would be a wash.
Jon
· 3 years ago
"so you don’t like ‘AJAX’ sites then? XMLHTTPRequest isn’t a W3C standard yet."
Stop trolling. It's absolutely possible to make a site that's 100% XHTML compliant that uses AJAX technology. Stop spreading BS please.
"You claim benefits of aiming towards saatisfying the Fx enthusiasts, but have you weighed the benefits to MS from speedier delivery to 90% of the market?"
I guess you missed the part that even Scoble mentioned in his post:
Because a high percentage of influentials are Firefox users.In other words, if you want the most passionate people in society to use your stuff, you must support Firefox.
90% of the total web population may be IE users but I can assure you that the target audience for this service is anything but 90% IE.
dahowlett
· 3 years ago
My goodness - this is a seriously high quality discussion. And there's me a newly converted Mac bigot after 24 years of Wintel. Listen guys, why not keep it simple.
1 You in the blue corner (MSFT), stop messing about. Ask the community what they want in IE7, prepare to hand it over to them so they can make MSFT great.
2. You in the red corner - APPLE - big it up for Robert, He's putting his professional nuts on the line here - guess what - play your cards right and you get a piece of the pie (hint - you got me already but you haven;t earned your corn just yet.)
Scott
· 3 years ago
Ironically Darren's site looks pretty rough in IE.
Alfredo Octavio
· 3 years ago
Don't forget us the influential Mac user that actually buys Office from Microsoft... No Window Media, No Music Store, No Safari support... No good Messenger...
I wrote a post earlier this week on Windows Live Mail's exclusionary policy of supporting IE only. I put up a screenshot of the crappy interface that is Live Mail in Firefox.
Keep pushing that boat out and making Microsoft a better corporate citizen for all of us.
Colin
· 3 years ago
I have to disagree and I do agree with Doug above. The issue is W3C standards. We come across this all the time with browser support for our online banking applicaition up here in Canada ( www.bmo.com ). We push the developers for open standard support, yet the flaws in IE continually push us to browser specific support. We should be able to develop apps with W3C support, and it should be up to the browsers manufacturers to follow those, but this just doesn't happen. If Mircosoft could be 100% W3C compatible this would put them in the lead overnight.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Tom and Dileepa: The Live Mail team told me two weeks ago they were going to support Firefox. In fact, most teams, even those who ship only IE support at first, tell me that Firefox versions are coming. I just think that Firefox support should be there from the very beginning.
Dileepa P
· 3 years ago
Yes... I agree... At least it's getting better, right? I remember the very first interviews the WLMail team - and they very clearly told that at the moment they were only concentrating on IE and no other browsers. Now, they are going to release a version that works well in FF.
I use both FF and IE7 - IE7 is a memory hog, but hangs way less than FF (no extensions installed).
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Dileepa, oh, it certainly is getting better. Microsoft teams generally are pretty good about prioritizing things that have large usage patterns.
Simon Heseltine
· 3 years ago
Totally agree, if you go completely insular and only support your own products you'll just succeed in driving people away from your products, although as a developer in a past life, I do understand the need to cut features to get a product out, with the intention of improving and adding those features back in at a later date (of course, some of them continue to get cut and eventually just fall off the list).
William
· 3 years ago
I'd far prefer see Windows Live products out of the door, with IE support only than not at all, and a long delay.
In the same way that most products & services are rolled out progresively in teh 'real' world - you have a partner, then another, then you build on it to expand. This "all in one go" stuff seems to just slow the process down.
Additionally, I'm coming accross an inreasingly high number of websites that are Firefox only. Do they get the same sort of bashing? I could be wrong, but I dont get that impression.
Brandon Paddock
· 3 years ago
I think there's a difference between "not supporting Firefox" and "not supporting Firefox from the start."
Frankly I don't think it's a huge deal that some services in BETA don't support Firefox - if they're planning to before release.
AdCenter certainly should have had at least a fallback-mode ready. So I'm with you on this one Robert... that just plain sucks.
Brett Nordquist
· 3 years ago
The problem with adding Firefox support at a later date is that if I visit a site that doesn't offer support at launch, I don't go back. So you might work really hard on your site or product and spend a lot of money getting me there but if my first experience sucks I won't go back. There are too many other companies that care enough to make my first experience a positive one.
Jimbo
· 3 years ago
It was my understanding that the long term strategy for Windows Live is about creating lock-in for IE by providing gadgets and apps that only work in IE. At least that's what I've read. Am I wrong? If the long term goal IS universal access, that would be nice. But that would involve competing purely on merit.
sundoggy
· 3 years ago
Good discussion. I am in the camp to just develop to W3C standards and be done with it (and that means making IE7 W3C compliant too), without the MS hooks. I'm an Apple guy to the bone, but I'm also a Microsoft customer for almost as many years. I want this stuff to work in Safari, or at least Firefox Mac (but if you stick to standards, then I can use Safari).
And BTW, Robert, this also comes back to your "influentials" comment. As you know, something bordering on the majority of technology "influentials" use Macs these days. MS should take this opportunity to use the service applications to leap frog everyone and free them from the past of their own inhibiting legacy (Windows OS), its dragging reliance on backward compatibility, and anti-trust lawyers at elevator stop. If MS ties this at all to Windows OS, they are locking themselves and their users in the past, when they should be defining the future. It may take 15 years, but that kind of strategy will take them down.
There is a huge opportunity here... No one is that close to really having a solid and comprehensive net-Office, or complete service package (all the players seem to have one or two good pieces, but no one has the MS Office of web aps yet). It's time to reinvent MS, and the tools and pieces are all there...
Matt Rolak
· 3 years ago
While I'm all for having full browser support in all 'online' services.. doing so at the first launch has a cost. While it may be easy to say 'develop a site that is cross-browser from the start' that isn't so true on the testing side of things.
Robert, you want to give out 3.0's to everyone who doesn't support 'all' browsers then you better give them the $$ to hire the people to TEST those systems in order to get out of your 'auto-3.0-hell'. Over and over I see messages stating that dev time is the big constraint.. let's not forget about testing too! It's great if I can write code which is supposed to work in FireFox, IE, Safari, Opera, etc... but we still have to test it. One of the scariest things to a tester is 'we got this working in X-browser for no dev time so it's free for us to have this feature'. Features (and yes, supporting more than 1 browser is a feature) are never free...
---just the thoughts of a tester on one of those sites I guess you won't link to cause we don't have Firefox support yet :(
Diego Barros
· 3 years ago
Excellent post Robert. I hope it all comes to fruition soon.
Dmad
· 3 years ago
@26 You'd think that with all he time you spend with various and sundry MS dev teams you would understand the risks of shipping with all browser support in V1 of a product. Do you really think MS would want to risk losing money by shipping even later simply to support Firefox? There is a difference between not supporting firefox, period, and not supporting it until later versions.
Brandon Paddock
· 3 years ago
Jimbo -
You are wrong. The strategy for Windows Live has been to support Firefox at the earliest opportunity (and to work with Opera and Safari as much as possible).
kp
· 3 years ago
Robert, I am sorry to say this but you sound naive. Why should Microsoft support a competing product? If I were Microsoft, I am in a business of making money and I will make sure my customers (aka users) don't use products other than mine. Also, Firefox is now passe considering the leaps that IE7 has made. I was a fan of Firefox till I found IE7 beta.
If I were Bill Gates I'd issue a memo that said "any team that ships without supporting what majority of end users want automatically gets 3.0s for all members."...and if I were Bill Gates I WOULD make sure majority of users would eventually be satisfied with Microsoft products only (i.e. I will focus on innovating stuff that users would love). Keep in mind, Microsoft is all about predicting what will be bleeding edge and them making it happen for end users. 10 years back no one imagined a Windows based UI for desktop will rule the industry.
Brett Nordquist
· 3 years ago
kp: You're kidding, right, when you say Firefox is passe? What "leaps" has IE 7 Beta made that you can't find in Firefox? You assume all users are created equal, but they are not. MS *should* care about that 10% who use Firefox because they are the most savvy, most influential users that MS should want as customers.
Diego Barros
· 3 years ago
kp: Leaps that IE7 has made? Maybe leaps from IE6, certainly not over Firefox. It's only playing catchup to Firefox. MS had been sleeping after the work they had done with IE and killing Netscape. Firefox nudged them out of their slumber.
Devil's Advocate
· 3 years ago
@37 - shipping cross platform apps is less risky if you develop for all platforms at once. Otherwise you end up doing rework on the first platform when you go back to add the second.
IE 7 is still less capable and standards compliant than Firefox.
I use Safari 90% of the time. Support it.
Practically speaking - Safari 1.3+, Firefox 1.0+, and IE 6+ constitute 98% of web traffic. You must support at least these or you are losers.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Devil's: Scott and I talked about Safari. That one is going to be harder because it has a bug that keeps advanced AJAX stuff from working.
Tom Raftery
· 3 years ago
Robert - I agree absolutely (no surprise there) - Microsoft's products do need to support Firefox out of the gate.
I wouldn't count myself as one of the 'influentials' but I have reviewed many of Microsoft's releases soon after their release and I have always panned them for their lack of Firefox support.
In fact, I have gone further and left comments on the blogs of any of the teams who had them (like the start.com team, for instance) but I always got the impression that I was annoying people rather than providing valuable feedback.
jean
· 3 years ago
If you want users to use your services its simple provide support for firefox. I myself uses firefox and hotmail not written to support for firefox is sad, which makes users likemyself use yahoo mail.
Whoa! there was some stuff up above that I couldnt understand but I did most of it anyways! I tried the site in question on Opera and it worked fine! Now what does Opera 'have' that Firefox 'hasn't?'. And the less said about how "IE7 is better than Firefox", the better!
Mike
· 3 years ago
Microsoft, at his very core, is feared as hell of everybody else. Call it hitech-xenophobia if you like.
They have found a way to fight this (BillG memo 1991), and that's to recreate their own file formats everytime there is a new standard/file format to deal with.
That Microsoft should support Firefox, i.e. a bunch of file formats that were not created at Microsoft in the first place is both ludicrous and a lack of understanding of Microsoft's core business.
This is never going to happen. Because it's hard. Having to worry about others is hard. It might fool a couple influential bloggers though.
Tina
· 3 years ago
I totally agree with you. I just wrote an entry about this too. I don't mind Microsoft products in general, but when they block me from using their services it does not make me want to switch over to IE. Microsoft has more to win from making their services available for everyone, than by trying to convert people back to IE!
They need to remember that most Firefox users are people who have chosen to use it, not because it was an already installed program on their computer. For Microsoft to win these people back, they have to offer something more than what Firefox users have already turned down. So let's just wait and see how IE7 turns out :D
Jim Hill
· 3 years ago
Robert: you say
it’s not that they don’t think it’s important, it’s that they put it on a lower priority and are trying to get things out faster
and
[Safari] has a bug that keeps advanced AJAX stuff from working.
— and that pair is the heart of the matter. The issue isn't, except among the fanboys, really about Microsoft's support for Firefox or Safari or iCab or Amaya or whathaveyou.
It's about Microsoft trying to support the standards all those other people's browsers are also trying to support. Safari can't do AJAX because it's got a bug? That's Safari's problem. Apple will get no sympathy for that problem beyond the baseline it-happens-to-everybody forbearance.
Judge Jackson's explanation (at paragraph 36) of network effects explains what Microsoft have been after — that they produce real, and huge, value — perhaps less provocatively than kp did above. But I think, because standards evolve, this game is the iterated prisoner's dilemma with a real and huge reward for cooperation. Microsoft's strategy has been consistent defection. Long-term, it's not a winner.
Jim Hill
· 3 years ago
Gaaah! Paragraph 39, not 36!Sorry.
fatfingur
· 3 years ago
I think Microsoft should comply with web standards through their browser because they don't own the web.
Nicole Simon
· 3 years ago
Firefox users are approaching 50% of my readers, IE readers are already in the minority. This is consistent over all my blogs.
As for supporting IE vs. Firefox: I do accept if a service starts out the full version on their own browsers IF and only if it is built to support both. If not, then building "it for good in our browser first" usually introduces 'features' which will never make it to other browsers at all. That is like wanting to use a basement which was not built from the beginning.
Now, do I use Microsoft pages at all? The only one I do use it win update / driver download and yes, I have to do that in IE because Firefox does not work properly there. Everything else which says 'IE only' I leave immeadeatly.
Last example was a website which sold me a gadget at some hundred dollars. I went for another website which was 20 dollar more. But it did work great in Firefox and let me do what I wanted.
peteremcc
· 3 years ago
Everyone is missing the point, instead of having to customise every website to work with every browser, or the other way around, we have these things called 'standards'.
If all the browsers supported the standards then there wouldn't be all these problems. Sure the occasional website might not be built properly but anything halfway decent will support the standards because it will be much easier to do if everyone else is. ----- Peter http://peteremcc.wordpress.com
jeff
· 3 years ago
I think there is a movement happening towards supporting Firefox more; some MSN teams and the ASP.NET team are using automation tools such as Nexus to make sure that their testing encompasses Firefox and IE equally; supporting Firefox fully will only quicken the interest in the technical enthusiast community.
Chrono Cr@cker
· 3 years ago
Okay, so when are all Live products gonna support firefox. Will be a happy day for us when they do.
Awaiting that nice day...
Michael Kenward
· 3 years ago
When Microsoft bought Onfolio recently, Firefox support was the first casualty.
The Onfolio team says that there are no plans to restore this valuable connection.
Needless to say, there has been a rush for the exit doors and a search for Firefox friendly alternatives to Onfolio.
Alfredo Octavio
· 3 years ago
Robert, even if Safari has a bug, Gmail supports it, Flickr supports it. Microsoft simply looks bad when it claims difficulty doing what some of the smaller players are doing. Yes, sometimes Google has to wait a while to support Macs or Safari, but they come with Firefox support from the Start. Microsoft should simply do better than them. It's the only way to beat them... Now. You should also avoid the "it's coming" really. It looks bad.
Robert Scoble
· 3 years ago
Alfredo: Gmail and Flickr use very little AJAX. Live.com is going to do stuff that Google simply isn't trying to do yet. More to come this summer.
Fatfingr: I agree. But I don't live in a fantasy world. I live in the world as it is. There are hundreds of millions of IE 6 versions out there. They will never support standards the way IE 7 or Firefox or Safari do. Sorry. So, until we get everyone to upgrade to one of the modern browsers, you can't rely on doing just standards-based development.
Chrono: I don't know when they all will. I would expect almost all to support it before they take off the beta label.
Michael: regarding Onfolio. I think that is a damn shame and is being driven by our lawyers. I think that's a business mistake and I hope it gets rectified (I'm yelling and screaming about it internally).
Scott Isaacs
· 3 years ago
I am going to jump in very briefly...
To reiterate what Robert is saying, all Windows Live services are still in beta. Expect to see Firefox support on Live services by final release or even before. For example, Hotmail (Kahuna) already announced plans to provide Firefox support in the very very near future.
Re: Safari - We are discussing with them our issues (there are bugs against Safari filed). If you explore my blog, you will find the technical explanation on the issues.
Dan Becker
· 3 years ago
I'm not a "firefox guy" or an "IE guy" or a "Safari guy".
I'm a technologist -- and I use all of these browsers (including IE7 on Vista) every single day, across about 6 different machines at home & at work (W2k, TabletXP, Vista, OS X, and varied linux distros) - oh, and Opera Mini on my Razr, too.
If a website/web service requires me to THINK "Oh, wait I need to be on this browser/platform before I can go there" then I will not keep it in my 'web-toolbox'. Simple as that.
Larry
· 3 years ago
Robert,
I thought Microsoft believed in freedom choice? That was certainly the early positioning against the iTunes music store.
How does your company (not you) square this seemingly hypocritical position?
jerry
· 3 years ago
Robert, I'd love to some progress on the ASP.NET front. If MS would take the lead in publishing an upgraded browserCaps many many web sites, presumably including many MS and sharepoint sites would work much with new browsers. For reference, see http://aspnet.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/05050...
Firefox support is no longer an optional feature, it's an absolute requirement. Someone needs to beat that drum at the highest level of MS.
Doug
· 3 years ago
Re: my comment above.
I don't think some bloggers realise that the majority of their visitors using Fx are not the majority using web services for the public.
This puts me in mind when politicians say "the majority of people I speak to agree with my view on imigration/iraq/education/healthcare", ignoring the fact that the reason the majority of people they speak to agree is because they are surrounded by like-minded people. Want to guess what the major browser on Mozillazine.org may be?
This anecdotal evidence does not equate to a sound business case. How many Fx 'influentials' have the power to insist their company operates in a MS OS/Office environment rather than moving to Open source? I think ad revenue has a long way to meet MS Office revenue. Passionate enthusiasts, 'influentials', haven't managed to take over the desktop with linux. They can perpetuate a meme, not a business case.
I use Fx, and I am influential in my place of work, but that does not correspond to any zealous belief that product launch should be held back because it hasn't been built and tested for 10-15% of the browser market.
imo.
Rick Mahn
· 3 years ago
Glad to see this get talked about. While I'm a fan of MS, I've taken to using both browsers full time. and it is important to have the flexibility.
More importantly, if MS really wants to be viewed as trying to reach out, grow, and participate in the web 2.0 world, it needs to support the major browsers. Making Firefox support manditory is a huge step in the right direction.
Good post.
John C. Welch
· 3 years ago
I've got to go with what a few people have been saying: If I can't properly use a service the first time I go to it, it's dead to me.
Why should I keep going back? That's a waste of time. They didn't want my patronage once, who am I to beg for the chance to use their service.
Spaces didn't want my patronage, not a problem, there are other places that do. I use them.
Windows Live, Start.com, whatever didn't want my patronage, not a problem, I'll go elsewhere to someone that does.
Same thing with WIndows Live Mail. What are they possibly going to have in some random amount of time that Gmail won't have? Not bloody much, it's email. What Gmail has RIGHT NOW, is the ability for me to fully use it on any platform I happen to be using.
Google's services obviously want my patronage more than Microsoft's, and because of that, they get them.
But here's the kicker. Now that I'm on Gmail, Windows Live Mail would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER for the things that *I* care about. See, getting me the first time is easy. I don't have an existing service, so I don't really know what I want yet. But once I've got something I like, it's much harder to get me to switch. Not only do you have to match everything I get out of my current service, but you have to have some significant advantages over my current service.
So, even on that magical day when Windows Live Mail fully supports Firefox on every OS Firefox runs on, to the exact.same.level that they support IE on Windows, why should I switch? What does Windows Live Mail have that Gmail doesn't FOR ME?
Without that last question being answered, I'm not going to even consider switching
James
· 3 years ago
Scoble: Thank you! As a Linux user, you don't know how nice it is to hear this from someone within Microsoft.
bananasfk
· 3 years ago
I can write xhtml that blows up old ie, it does not blowup firefox,seamonkey et all. I write to xhtml standards not what ie 'feels like what it can hack'
If it comes to writing both a ff and an ie html page then Sco is right - as a ff user Im steering clear of microsoft sites why because i consider having to use ms sw on ms sites as lock in.
Our office is migrating to Linux very soon (in a month), eg no Microsoft pc's, when Microsoft can code a proper browser that supports xhtml. I'll come back until then some of our pages will make ie gpf, or alternatively I can write code that tells the windows user to 'use firefox on windows' its no bother.
html is a standard, and if m/s wishes its sites to become the modern cix/compuserve (before the internet version) then good, just don't expect me to play ball.
Stanley Krute
· 3 years ago
This is just the tip of the iceberg, Robert.
In general: lots of Microsoft apps BREAK THE RULES. Whether its Win32 or HTML or CSS. Sloppy engineering, kids.
For example: install XP on a clean new machine. Then run a good registry cleaner-upper like the one in System Suite 6. It'll find a coupla hundred registry errors.
Office is even worse.
If MS wrote browser code that validated (HTML and CSS), the stuff would just work in Firefox. No major extra engineering needed.
I'm a Microsoft fan -- it's the reason we have great $500 computer systems and ubiquitous cybernia -- but this is the biggest hole in MS engineering. Frankly, I think folks would be embarassed by such incompetence.
-- stan
Ben Hollis
· 3 years ago
You've totally got it, Robert. Pushing out IE-only sites makes Microsoft look old-fashioned. No matter how much Web 2.0 AJAX buzzword whizbang they put in the page, if it's IE-only then whoever launched it just doesn't understand the web.
Danny Tuppeny
· 3 years ago
What about the actual ad code - does that work in Firefox? I'd imagine so, and surely that's more important than the ad control panel? I don't think there's any excuse for them not to support it (even if there's a note saying it may not work properly), but at least if the ads display, it shows they're not completely ignoring Firefox!
Wild Bill
· 3 years ago
Interesting comment, Scoble.
"The influencers use Firefox".
Complete market dominance just p*ssed away.
I betcha the VPs who choose to let IE stagnate these last five years are really getting beat up for that.
Let me rephrase that. They *should* be beating beat up for that decision.
I guess they're not, and they and their money are enjoying long term employment benefits within MS.
I'm with Mini-MSFT on this one. Cut the fat. Fire the dead wood. And if someone screws up (IE stagnation, Vista Reset, Mr Clippy, MS Share price flatline, etc) - they get FIRED. Regardless how long they've been "chums" with Bill.
Then folks outside MS will have faith again.
---* Bill
Neil Cowburn
· 3 years ago
I for one would love to see *better* support for Firefox from Microsoft. Windows Live Mail hasn't really changed much in the last few months despite the "we're working on it" message and OWA thru Firefox (or any non-IE browser) sucks ass.
Don't even get me started on support for Safari and Microsoft's decision to drop IE for the Mac! Ludicrious!
Jon
· 3 years ago
Doug: Stop bringing up that "targetting 10% of the browser market" crap into this conversation. Fact is Firefox's market (and other non-IE browsers) is a higher than 10% for the market AdCenter is in.
W3schools is a site targetted at webmasters and the link above is their traffic stats. W3school's traffic is 63% IE, 25% Firefox.
John C. Welch
· 3 years ago
No, dropping IE Mac was a good idea. It started as a really good browser, but like IE 6, it just got neglected all to hell. If you're not going to do anything with it, just keeping it around is silly.
Robert Sayre
· 3 years ago
Here's a link to an MS PM helping with the Firefox installer for Windows Vista:
I guess MSN does not want my money either. I use IE, but have high DPI display. Most MSN sites use fixed font sized, thus displaying very tiny fonts - barely readable. And expo.live.com is the worst - it uses fixed fonts, still managed to screw up the page layout (they obviously were creative) - so I have to scroll couple of pages to see the main page content. I guess they are obviously not interested in my money.
Jon Galloway
· 3 years ago
Treating browser support as a feature is a bad idea, just from a practical point of view. It's like saying you'll add on security as a Version 2 feature - it's much harder to do after the fact.
The easiest way to build cross broswer web applications is to develop standards compliant HTML and use IE specific conditional comments to use modified CSS or Javascript which works around IE bugs. It's what the IE team is reccommending as well.
Standards compliant code is a measure of code quality, and you can't bolt quality on. It needs to be part of the process from day one.
To clarify my comment (84) - IE7's is in many ways a lot closer to Firefox than IE6. That's why the IE team is reccommending that you write standards compliant code now, then modify it with conditional comments so your sites won't break when IE7 comes out.
It's a mistake to think you're covered by writing code that works in IE6, even if you don't care about "those Firefox zealots". Within a year (fingers crossed) that IE6 specific site won't look so good.
It's very shortsighted to write IE6 code right now - even if you manage to "upgrade" to add IE7 and Firefox support later, you'll always have patched code. Why not do it right from the start?
Alfredo Octavio
· 3 years ago
I disagree with John. Letting IE for Mac stagnate was a huge mistake for Microsoft. It allowed the entrance of Safari in the market. Even with small market share numbers it has a big mind share. It also force pretty much every Mac User to download Firefox (as the only option in the sites that think Windows is all there is). This is the same that is happening in music. The Windows Media Stores do not make a dent, because they are tied to Windows. Influential and "bleeding edge" Mac users can't use the, It is true, Microsoft does not want my money. I thought I will be forced to buy Virtual PC at some point, but later developments say I won't have to buy Microsoft products for my mac again!
John C. Welch
· 3 years ago
Microsoft is perfectly capable of fully supporting Windows Media on OS X as well as Linux. But Windows Media is not about such things.
Windows Media doesn't care about the best digital media experience as a thing unto itself. Windows Media has one major purpose:
To force you to use Windows if you want to see content. If you think that there is any other justification to Windows Media only being fully supported on Microsoft Platforms, you're fooling yourself. I guarantee you if QuickTime and iTunes and Real all jumped on to Windows Media tomorrow, you would still never, ever, ever see Windows Media 10 or 11 or whatever support on anything but a Microsoft -created OS.
You will *never* see Microsoft support Windows Media DRM fully on anything but a Microsoft created OS. To do so would grant a legitimacy to non-Microsoft OS's that neither Gates, nor Ballmer shall ever allow.
It is the reason why every time you see Microsoft offering a Windows interoperability solution, it is either a migration tool, or so crippled that you'd have to be masochistic to use it. Services for Macintosh is the perfect example.
Alfredo Octavio
· 3 years ago
John: I know that's the reason. What I am saying is that that strategy has failed for Microsoft. It's the reason they are not competitive. They do not compete!
Robert: Live.com is going to do stuff that Google simply isn’t trying to do yet. More to come this summer. I see... Microsoft is doing great stuff with Ajax with "more to come" coming... Unfortunately, I will never get to see it, since I use Safari and, at most, Firefox. Pity.
Limulus
· 3 years ago
ychittaranjan wrote: I tried the site in question on Opera and it worked fine! Now what does Opera ‘have’ that Firefox ‘hasn’t?’.
iiRC, older versions of Opera spoofed the user agent string by default to pretend to be IE 6. In fact I can confirm that by using Opera 8.5 on Linux and going Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Network and changing "Browser identification" to "Identify as MSIE 6.0" that the form on https://adcenter.msn.com/Signup.aspx loads just fine.
There really is no excuse for whoever designed that page to disallow users of alternate browsers when a simple notice at the top of the page, indicating that it *might* not work 100% correctly with alternate browsers, would suffice.
Limulus
· 3 years ago
Mike wrote:
> Microsoft, at his very core, is feared as hell of everybody else. Call it hitech-xenophobia if you like.
"the bad, old Microsoft. This is the Microsoft that ran roughshod over competitors in order to gain market share at any cost. The Microsoft that forgot about customers in its blind zeal to harm competitors. The Microsoft, that frankly, all the Linux and Apple fanatics always imagined was out there, plotting and planning their termination. The Microsoft that threatens Windows fans with needless legal threats rather than reaching out and creating constructive relationships with the very people who prop up the company the most."
Limulus
· 3 years ago
Tina wrote: "most Firefox users are people who have chosen to use it, not because it was an already installed program on their computer. For Microsoft to win these people back, they have to offer something more than what Firefox users have already turned down. So let’s just wait and see how IE7 turns out :D"
The way I see it, MS knows that IE 6 is in rough shape; new security vulnerabilities are routinely found and patched up, but more importantly to MS, its hemmoraging market share badly.
IE 7 isn't about getting people to switch back from FF (IMHO IE 7 would have a tough time winning in a fight against FF *1.0*, never mind 1.5 or 2.0...), its about stopping (or at least slowing) the mass exodus from IE. That's a more realistic goal. If you look at http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement14.asp you can see how bad its gotten for MS in Europe: about 20% of all Europeans are using FF, with some notable examples near or above 30% (Germany, Finland, Slovenia, etc.)
And based on my personal experience, each and every one of those people is now a good candidate for migrating to Linux, since the experience is the same regardless of the OS...
A decade ago, MS said it was "delivering on its commitment to provide full-featured Web browser support on all major operating system platforms" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_...) but then they won the browser wars and that was the end of that.
Limulus
· 3 years ago
Jon wrote: "here’s an example of how a site’s target audience can make the browser statistics change: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stat... W3schools is a site targetted at webmasters and the link above is their traffic stats. W3school’s traffic is 63% IE, 25% Firefox."
One excellent example of a site where Firefox has taken over (no doubt one of the places where "the most passionate people in society" go ;) is BoingBoing (see http://www.boingboing.net/stats/awstats.boingbo...)
For May thusfar, its 46.3% FF vs 28.4% for IE
Limulus
· 3 years ago
Previously, I wrote: "There really is no excuse for whoever designed that page to disallow users of alternate browsers when a simple notice at the top of the page, indicating that it *might* not work 100% correctly with alternate browsers, would suffice."
Er... apparently, it *is* just a notice at the top of the page (but with a lot of white space to trick you into thinking you're getting an error page) if you scroll down, there's the form (though clicking on the billing tab doesn't work... I guess its true that they don't want my money ;)
Limulus
· 3 years ago
Sean DALY wrote: "Firefox happens to be the only cross-platform browser"
--- Which browsers work with Microsoft adCenter? Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later. Microsoft adCenter is currently incompatible with Firefox, Safari and Internet Explorer 7 (beta) browsers. As Microsoft adCenter becomes compatible with additional browsers, we will update this site. --- What do I need to run Microsoft adCenter? Microsoft adCenter is a Web-based program that can be used on any computer. You will need to make sure you have the following:
o A working Internet connection. o Microsoft Windows 98 or later operating system installed. o Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Web browser installed.
In addition, be sure to check that your system has the following:
o Macromedia Flash Player 6.0 or later installed to properly view adCenter reports. Download and install the latest version from Macromedia. o Adobe Acrobat Reader installed. Download and install the latest version from Adobe. o Screen resolution set to “Normal size (96 DPI),” and display resolution set to 1024 x 768 or higher. Consult your operating system's help for specific instructions. o Microsoft adCenter ActiveX control installed. Add Microsoft adCenter to your browser's list of trusted sites. Consult your Web browser's help for specific instructions. o Pop-up windows* allowed when visiting adCenter. Consult your Web browser's help for specific instructions.
* Additional small windows that 'pop up' over the web page you are viewing. ---
Wow, ActiveX *and* Pop-ups! Sounds like a wonderful place to visit ^_-
Limulus
· 3 years ago
There is a total disconnect between the statement "As Microsoft adCenter becomes compatible with additional browsers" and requiring a "Microsoft adCenter ActiveX control".
I'm beginning to think that future claims of support for other browsers was less of an afterthought than a statement like 'we're taking pre-orders for Duke Nukem Forever too' ;P
John C. Welch
· 3 years ago
Yeah...Hey MS, how 'bout you 'splain "requires Active X" and "We'll support !IE", because those statements are mutually exclusive.
Carl
· 3 years ago
I personally think that this just reflects on the sort of testing mentality over in Redmond.
They obviously know that it doesn't work in FF because they've took the trouble to create a special case message for it. So why not do the job properly and write compliant html code that doesn't require you to be viewing the internet through a browser that has been hashed-up to be able to parse bastardised code?
Any company the size of MS that releases a public facing website into the wild without ensuring its compatibility with all the mainstream browsers (like it or not, FF is mainstream) should be ashamed.
It occurs to me that maybe the reason that they don't bother is because they managed to convince the DOJ that Internet Explorer being an integral part of Windows was necessary - so for people that are accessing Windows Update they will always have IE installed so there is no need for FF compatibility.
Just for the record, I am not anti-Microsoft, and the above is probably the only antitrust case that I actually believe was justified. I would just like to be able to browse the web using whatever means I see fit.
Sean DALY
· 3 years ago
Limulus - I stand corrected. Many thanks for the heads-up.
Sean DALY
Tanny O'Haley
· 3 years ago
For me it actually takes less time to do a web project if I start with Firefox then add the hacks for IE. I've only been bit by this one time when I created a project that used JSON and built a large tree structure in script. It worked fine in Firefox even with a large tree of 4,700 plus entries. When I tried it in IE, it worked fine up to around 1,200 entries, then tanked. In Firefox it took less than two seconds with 4,700 plus entries but almost two minutes in IE! I had to rewrite this one piece (which actually worked out better) because of IE.
The company I work at has IE on every desktop. I still use Firefox to start with because I support employees who sometimes work from home and may or may not want to use IE.
The bottom line for me is that starting with Firefox usually reduces my development time. BTW, I am not an XHTML zealot, I still use HTML 4.01 strict most of the time.
Hemebond
· 3 years ago
What I find amusing is that, with security restrictions on high (which every IE user should have them on) with file downloads and script prompting, I get script errors and half a page. In your own browser!
So I bumped it down to medium to see what the fuss was about. Wanted to see this amazing complicated AJAX usage. Um. All I saw was the page loading large sections without going to a different page...
Is that it? What exactly are you doing there that couldn't be done with static or semi-static HTML? In fact why isn't this just HTML? Why are you trying to use a markup language your own browser doesn't understand? Why do you have to trigger quirks mode in your browser to get it to work? Have the developers not heard of unintrusive scripting? Seperation of structure from style from behaviour?
There's nothing on those pages that couldn't be done in valid HTML. Any version of HTML really.
Lame.
fenin
· 3 years ago
I dont think Peter Kay's grandmother will ever think of an IE alternative. But people who are wired a lot, does. Chances are that the so called 10% represent the most active /advanced users, who would probably go ahead and experiment new products[hei! thts why the other 90% dont try Firefox!!]. So if Microsoft is gonna say no to Firefox, most of these "let me try" users just wont try their stuff!! Who else will??!!
Peter Darling
· 3 years ago
Not a lot of people know this, but almost any business or strategic problem can be easily solved by applying the lessons of the terrific Rob Reiner movie The Princess Bride.
The stupidity of adCenter not working with anything but IE is pretty obvious — a lot of the people who are potential customers of this service, like, say, me, are Firefox users. Right away, with a brand-new product and a lot of competition, Microsoft is alienating customers.
And to use two characters from the movie as metaphors, rather than behaving like Inigo and Westley -- fast, agile, lethal and working together -- Web 2.0 guys -- Microsoft is behaving like Fezzik -- slow, powerful, but lumbering. At the end of the movie, Westley gets the princess, Inigo gets rich, and we never hear from Fezzik again.
I guess you could try any of these links: www.microsoft.com/dynamics/ax/product/demos.mspx All use the same method and all fail to load in Firefox because the embed-content is not synchronized with the object-content.
Draco
· 3 years ago
Speaking of bashing, have you seen the new commercials about no viruses attacking Mac's? The only logical reason for this is because no wants to write a virus for a computer system noone uses!!!
Alexey Feldgendler
· 3 years ago
Web services should not support IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Lynx, ... They should follow web standards AND be tested in several popular browsers. The former is more important. If a web service complies to standards but fails the test in a particular browser, and that browser's user base is important (like with IE), it should implement a workaround.
I repeat: it's more important to follow web standards than to "support browsers". If a web site doesn't follow web standards, it's likely to fail in any browser other than those specifically "supported". But if a standards-compliant site fails in some (less popular) browser, it may encourage the browser developers to fix the bug. In the end, it's better to work in all browsers but the buggy one than to fail in all browsers but the "supported" one(s).
fenin
· 3 years ago
Draco, if you are referring to this thread[all the related hype and the now infamous LATE CNN coverage]: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=18... That aint a Mac vulnerability . You have to download and CLICK it. Show something else :) And the context you chose is totally inappropriate!Its like saying "speaking of bashing, my GF dumped me!" Try somewhere else dude.
Bill Logan
· 3 years ago
Coming to this thread very late, but I want to correct something some people have said. A lot of people have talked about how these Windows Live websites are beta and that when they're finished they'll support whatever.
No. This is an absolutely wrong mindset. If a website is publicly accessible, if any Joe Q. Public can access it, then it has been "released." The term "beta" is a holdover from when disks were being shipped out to a certain large group of test users. It should be discarded. Applied to a website, the term "beta" is absolutely meaningless.
If people can access the website or service, then they are dealing with the final product you have put out there. As some people have noted, you essentially have one chance to get people interested in a website or service. If the site or service doesn't support their major browser (i.e. Firefox), they're not coming back.
MT
· 3 years ago
Cry me a river Firefox does not work with another website? Old news, get the facts:
Before the fanboys decide to go burn Redmond down they better come to the realization that Microsoft can support whatever they want with their web pages. I wonder how many of these Fanboys also support the Explorer Destroyer Campaign.
Another News Flash, if you have over 85% of the market you do not worry about the rest.
marcoos
· 3 years ago
Once again, your company doesn't want me to try your web server. :)
"Due to the complex requirements of presenting these lab content over the internet, only Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or later is supported."
All Comments
I know I automatically avoid Microsoft services these days unless I have no other choice, because most of the time they never work with Firefox or at best, work poorly.
Sure Firefox is somewhere around 10% marketshare, give or take, but you know how big 10% is of the Internet's user base? Your talking 10s of millions of people...if not approaching 100s of millions.
Any company who chooses to avoid that potential customer base size has no clue.
Increasing the number of clients you need to support increases time to market and increases number of people each team needs.
"Sorry no FireFox support yet, but we are working on it"
Microsoft products are expected to ship in X numer of languages, comply to X quality level, go through N security reviews, etc.
This type of beurocracy increases the overall quality of the software, but reduces time to market.
You need to optimize this. Given MSN/Live's commitment to cross-browser standards AFTER getting it to work in IE, I'm not sure they're sriking the wrong balance.
People pick on Microsoft for the smallest possible reason, and view everything they do in a neative mental framework. Certainly, you need to change that - but it doesn't mean a unilateral rule is the right way.
Incidentally, you're argument about influentials is a good one. But you need to tone down the rhetoric and approach influentials WITHIN Microsoft to get that around. Bring it up when you meet with teams as part of your job on Channel9: "Do you know how many reporters are using Firefox to evaluate your products?"
If you can make the point that cross-browser functionality is a POLITICAL (i.e. PR) argument, and NOT a "overall usefulness" or "necessary" argument, it's much more effective.
>We’re working to correct this as soon as possible.
That's exactly what we did...
Yeah, it sucked to have to cut this to meet our release date, and we did cut other stuff that we wanted even more.
And yes, we're working on it right now :)
I myself use IE only to run Windows Update, and I counsel friends and family to not risk financial transactions with IE because of the security issues (over and above the advice I have to give about protecting a Windows computer).
Firefox happens to be the only cross-platform browser, as Microsoft has dropped support on Apple and couldn't care less about GNU/Linux users. Everyday users don't care, but power users who connect to the web with different machines throughout the day like finding the same interface for browsing.
Firefox also offers natively live RSS bookmarks, which I understand will be available in IE sometime in 2007.
Sean DALY.
If you want to give me a message that states your site may not display correctly on my browser of choice then that's fine, but at least let me use it as-is.
Its an idealistic goal to support all browsers from the get-go, but thankfully things are starting to converge in terms of browser supported features. But it is MS place to innovate (as indeed most developers), and sometimes their own products are best placed to meet those innovations.
I also agree with Michael Griffiths; push this from a PR standpoint, not a techy/geek angle. You claim benefits of aiming towards saatisfying the Fx enthusiasts, but have you weighed the benefits to MS from speedier delivery to 90% of the market?
Nice idea not linking to browser specific sites though.
I can understand if they don't have 100% cross-browser compatibility within the members area at launch but it is pretty sad that you can't even sign up for the service without using IE.
What could possibly be on a sign up form that makes it technically impossible to use a non-IE browser?
I have a high traffic site I wouldn't mind trying MS's ad center on but this is a big negative mark on the service and I'm not touching it till Firefox is supported. IE-only sites are so 1990s.
Aren't they ones writing development tools that generate code that target IE? Using those tools leads to services that target IE and exclude Firefox. If the tools were agnostic, then time to market for service development would be a wash.
Stop trolling. It's absolutely possible to make a site that's 100% XHTML compliant that uses AJAX technology. Stop spreading BS please.
"You claim benefits of aiming towards saatisfying the Fx enthusiasts, but have you weighed the benefits to MS from speedier delivery to 90% of the market?"
I guess you missed the part that even Scoble mentioned in his post:
Because a high percentage of influentials are Firefox users.In other words, if you want the most passionate people in society to use your stuff, you must support Firefox.
90% of the total web population may be IE users but I can assure you that the target audience for this service is anything but 90% IE.
1 You in the blue corner (MSFT), stop messing about. Ask the community what they want in IE7, prepare to hand it over to them so they can make MSFT great.
2. You in the red corner - APPLE - big it up for Robert, He's putting his professional nuts on the line here - guess what - play your cards right and you get a piece of the pie (hint - you got me already but you haven;t earned your corn just yet.)
Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://spaces.msn.com/mailcall/Blog/cns!CC93011...
I wrote a post earlier this week on Windows Live Mail's exclusionary policy of supporting IE only. I put up a screenshot of the crappy interface that is Live Mail in Firefox.
Keep pushing that boat out and making Microsoft a better corporate citizen for all of us.
We push the developers for open standard support, yet the flaws in IE continually push us to browser specific support.
We should be able to develop apps with W3C support, and it should be up to the browsers manufacturers to follow those, but this just doesn't happen.
If Mircosoft could be 100% W3C compatible this would put them in the lead overnight.
I use both FF and IE7 - IE7 is a memory hog, but hangs way less than FF (no extensions installed).
In the same way that most products & services are rolled out progresively in teh 'real' world - you have a partner, then another, then you build on it to expand. This "all in one go" stuff seems to just slow the process down.
Additionally, I'm coming accross an inreasingly high number of websites that are Firefox only. Do they get the same sort of bashing? I could be wrong, but I dont get that impression.
Frankly I don't think it's a huge deal that some services in BETA don't support Firefox - if they're planning to before release.
AdCenter certainly should have had at least a fallback-mode ready. So I'm with you on this one Robert... that just plain sucks.
And BTW, Robert, this also comes back to your "influentials" comment. As you know, something bordering on the majority of technology "influentials" use Macs these days. MS should take this opportunity to use the service applications to leap frog everyone and free them from the past of their own inhibiting legacy (Windows OS), its dragging reliance on backward compatibility, and anti-trust lawyers at elevator stop. If MS ties this at all to Windows OS, they are locking themselves and their users in the past, when they should be defining the future. It may take 15 years, but that kind of strategy will take them down.
There is a huge opportunity here... No one is that close to really having a solid and comprehensive net-Office, or complete service package (all the players seem to have one or two good pieces, but no one has the MS Office of web aps yet). It's time to reinvent MS, and the tools and pieces are all there...
Robert, you want to give out 3.0's to everyone who doesn't support 'all' browsers then you better give them the $$ to hire the people to TEST those systems in order to get out of your 'auto-3.0-hell'. Over and over I see messages stating that dev time is the big constraint.. let's not forget about testing too! It's great if I can write code which is supposed to work in FireFox, IE, Safari, Opera, etc... but we still have to test it. One of the scariest things to a tester is 'we got this working in X-browser for no dev time so it's free for us to have this feature'. Features (and yes, supporting more than 1 browser is a feature) are never free...
---just the thoughts of a tester on one of those sites I guess you won't link to cause we don't have Firefox support yet :(
You are wrong. The strategy for Windows Live has been to support Firefox at the earliest opportunity (and to work with Opera and Safari as much as possible).
I am sorry to say this but you sound naive. Why should Microsoft support a competing product? If I were Microsoft, I am in a business of making money and I will make sure my customers (aka users) don't use products other than mine. Also, Firefox is now passe considering the leaps that IE7 has made. I was a fan of Firefox till I found IE7 beta.
If I were Bill Gates I'd issue a memo that said "any team that ships without supporting what majority of end users want automatically gets 3.0s for all members."...and if I were Bill Gates I WOULD make sure majority of users would eventually be satisfied with Microsoft products only (i.e. I will focus on innovating stuff that users would love). Keep in mind, Microsoft is all about predicting what will be bleeding edge and them making it happen for end users. 10 years back no one imagined a Windows based UI for desktop will rule the industry.
IE 7 is still less capable and standards compliant than Firefox.
I use Safari 90% of the time. Support it.
Practically speaking - Safari 1.3+, Firefox 1.0+, and IE 6+ constitute 98% of web traffic. You must support at least these or you are losers.
I wouldn't count myself as one of the 'influentials' but I have reviewed many of Microsoft's releases soon after their release and I have always panned them for their lack of Firefox support.
In fact, I have gone further and left comments on the blogs of any of the teams who had them (like the start.com team, for instance) but I always got the impression that I was annoying people rather than providing valuable feedback.
www.irin.co.uk
And the less said about how "IE7 is better than Firefox", the better!
They have found a way to fight this (BillG memo 1991), and that's to recreate their own file formats everytime there is a new standard/file format to deal with.
That Microsoft should support Firefox, i.e. a bunch of file formats that were not created at Microsoft in the first place is both ludicrous and a lack of understanding of Microsoft's core business.
This is never going to happen. Because it's hard. Having to worry about others is hard. It might fool a couple influential bloggers though.
They need to remember that most Firefox users are people who have chosen to use it, not because it was an already installed program on their computer. For Microsoft to win these people back, they have to offer something more than what Firefox users have already turned down. So let's just wait and see how IE7 turns out :D
and
— and that pair is the heart of the matter. The issue isn't, except among the fanboys, really about Microsoft's support for Firefox or Safari or iCab or Amaya or whathaveyou.
It's about Microsoft trying to support the standards all those other people's browsers are also trying to support. Safari can't do AJAX because it's got a bug? That's Safari's problem. Apple will get no sympathy for that problem beyond the baseline it-happens-to-everybody forbearance.
Judge Jackson's explanation (at paragraph 36) of network effects explains what Microsoft have been after — that they produce real, and huge, value — perhaps less provocatively than kp did above. But I think, because standards evolve, this game is the iterated prisoner's dilemma with a real and huge reward for cooperation. Microsoft's strategy has been consistent defection. Long-term, it's not a winner.
As for supporting IE vs. Firefox: I do accept if a service starts out the full version on their own browsers IF and only if it is built to support both. If not, then building "it for good in our browser first" usually introduces 'features' which will never make it to other browsers at all. That is like wanting to use a basement which was not built from the beginning.
Now, do I use Microsoft pages at all? The only one I do use it win update / driver download and yes, I have to do that in IE because Firefox does not work properly there. Everything else which says 'IE only' I leave immeadeatly.
Last example was a website which sold me a gadget at some hundred dollars. I went for another website which was 20 dollar more. But it did work great in Firefox and let me do what I wanted.
If all the browsers supported the standards then there wouldn't be all these problems. Sure the occasional website might not be built properly but anything halfway decent will support the standards because it will be much easier to do if everyone else is.
-----
Peter
http://peteremcc.wordpress.com
Awaiting that nice day...
The Onfolio team says that there are no plans to restore this valuable connection.
Needless to say, there has been a rush for the exit doors and a search for Firefox friendly alternatives to Onfolio.
Fatfingr: I agree. But I don't live in a fantasy world. I live in the world as it is. There are hundreds of millions of IE 6 versions out there. They will never support standards the way IE 7 or Firefox or Safari do. Sorry. So, until we get everyone to upgrade to one of the modern browsers, you can't rely on doing just standards-based development.
Chrono: I don't know when they all will. I would expect almost all to support it before they take off the beta label.
Michael: regarding Onfolio. I think that is a damn shame and is being driven by our lawyers. I think that's a business mistake and I hope it gets rectified (I'm yelling and screaming about it internally).
To reiterate what Robert is saying, all Windows Live services are still in beta. Expect to see Firefox support on Live services by final release or even before. For example, Hotmail (Kahuna) already announced plans to provide Firefox support in the very very near future.
Re: Safari - We are discussing with them our issues (there are bugs against Safari filed). If you explore my blog, you will find the technical explanation on the issues.
I'm a technologist -- and I use all of these browsers (including IE7 on Vista) every single day, across about 6 different machines at home & at work (W2k, TabletXP, Vista, OS X, and varied linux distros) - oh, and Opera Mini on my Razr, too.
If a website/web service requires me to THINK "Oh, wait I need to be on this browser/platform before I can go there" then I will not keep it in my 'web-toolbox'. Simple as that.
I thought Microsoft believed in freedom choice? That was certainly the early positioning against the iTunes music store.
How does your company (not you) square this seemingly hypocritical position?
http://weblogs.asp.net/kdente/archive/2005/11/1...
Firefox support is no longer an optional feature, it's an absolute requirement. Someone needs to beat that drum at the highest level of MS.
I don't think some bloggers realise that the majority of their visitors using Fx are not the majority using web services for the public.
This puts me in mind when politicians say "the majority of people I speak to agree with my view on imigration/iraq/education/healthcare", ignoring the fact that the reason the majority of people they speak to agree is because they are surrounded by like-minded people. Want to guess what the major browser on Mozillazine.org may be?
This anecdotal evidence does not equate to a sound business case. How many Fx 'influentials' have the power to insist their company operates in a MS OS/Office environment rather than moving to Open source? I think ad revenue has a long way to meet MS Office revenue. Passionate enthusiasts, 'influentials', haven't managed to take over the desktop with linux. They can perpetuate a meme, not a business case.
I use Fx, and I am influential in my place of work, but that does not correspond to any zealous belief that product launch should be held back because it hasn't been built and tested for 10-15% of the browser market.
imo.
More importantly, if MS really wants to be viewed as trying to reach out, grow, and participate in the web 2.0 world, it needs to support the major browsers. Making Firefox support manditory is a huge step in the right direction.
Good post.
Why should I keep going back? That's a waste of time. They didn't want my patronage once, who am I to beg for the chance to use their service.
Spaces didn't want my patronage, not a problem, there are other places that do. I use them.
Windows Live, Start.com, whatever didn't want my patronage, not a problem, I'll go elsewhere to someone that does.
Same thing with WIndows Live Mail. What are they possibly going to have in some random amount of time that Gmail won't have? Not bloody much, it's email. What Gmail has RIGHT NOW, is the ability for me to fully use it on any platform I happen to be using.
Google's services obviously want my patronage more than Microsoft's, and because of that, they get them.
But here's the kicker. Now that I'm on Gmail, Windows Live Mail would have to be SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER for the things that *I* care about. See, getting me the first time is easy. I don't have an existing service, so I don't really know what I want yet. But once I've got something I like, it's much harder to get me to switch. Not only do you have to match everything I get out of my current service, but you have to have some significant advantages over my current service.
So, even on that magical day when Windows Live Mail fully supports Firefox on every OS Firefox runs on, to the exact.same.level that they support IE on Windows, why should I switch? What does Windows Live Mail have that Gmail doesn't FOR ME?
Without that last question being answered, I'm not going to even consider switching
As a Linux user, you don't know how nice it is to hear this from someone within Microsoft.
If it comes to writing both a ff and an ie html page then Sco is right - as a ff user Im steering clear of microsoft sites why because i consider having to use ms sw on ms sites as lock in.
Our office is migrating to Linux very soon (in a month), eg no Microsoft pc's, when Microsoft can code a proper browser that supports xhtml. I'll come back until then some of our pages will make ie gpf, or alternatively I can write code that tells the windows user to 'use firefox on windows' its no bother.
html is a standard, and if m/s wishes its sites to become the modern cix/compuserve (before the internet version) then good, just don't expect me to play ball.
In general: lots of Microsoft apps BREAK THE RULES.
Whether its Win32 or HTML or CSS. Sloppy engineering, kids.
For example: install XP on a clean new machine. Then run a good registry cleaner-upper like the one in System Suite 6. It'll find a coupla hundred registry errors.
Office is even worse.
If MS wrote browser code that validated (HTML and CSS), the stuff would just work in Firefox. No major extra engineering needed.
I'm a Microsoft fan -- it's the reason we have great $500 computer systems and ubiquitous cybernia -- but this is the biggest hole in MS engineering. Frankly, I think folks would be embarassed by such incompetence.
-- stan
"The influencers use Firefox".
Complete market dominance just p*ssed away.
I betcha the VPs who choose to let IE stagnate these last five years are really getting beat up for that.
Let me rephrase that. They *should* be beating beat up for that decision.
I guess they're not, and they and their money are enjoying long term employment benefits within MS.
I'm with Mini-MSFT on this one. Cut the fat. Fire the dead wood. And if someone screws up (IE stagnation, Vista Reset, Mr Clippy, MS Share price flatline, etc) - they get FIRED. Regardless how long they've been "chums" with Bill.
Then folks outside MS will have faith again.
---* Bill
Don't even get me started on support for Safari and Microsoft's decision to drop IE for the Mac! Ludicrious!
Since you apparently love numbers, here's an example of how a site's target audience can make the browser statistics change:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stat...
W3schools is a site targetted at webmasters and the link above is their traffic stats. W3school's traffic is 63% IE, 25% Firefox.
http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.apps...
The easiest way to build cross broswer web applications is to develop standards compliant HTML and use IE specific conditional comments to use modified CSS or Javascript which works around IE bugs. It's what the IE team is reccommending as well.
Standards compliant code is a measure of code quality, and you can't bolt quality on. It needs to be part of the process from day one.
I wrote about this a while ago:
http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/1...
It's a mistake to think you're covered by writing code that works in IE6, even if you don't care about "those Firefox zealots". Within a year (fingers crossed) that IE6 specific site won't look so good.
It's very shortsighted to write IE6 code right now - even if you manage to "upgrade" to add IE7 and Firefox support later, you'll always have patched code. Why not do it right from the start?
Windows Media doesn't care about the best digital media experience as a thing unto itself. Windows Media has one major purpose:
To force you to use Windows if you want to see content. If you think that there is any other justification to Windows Media only being fully supported on Microsoft Platforms, you're fooling yourself. I guarantee you if QuickTime and iTunes and Real all jumped on to Windows Media tomorrow, you would still never, ever, ever see Windows Media 10 or 11 or whatever support on anything but a Microsoft -created OS.
You will *never* see Microsoft support Windows Media DRM fully on anything but a Microsoft created OS. To do so would grant a legitimacy to non-Microsoft OS's that neither Gates, nor Ballmer shall ever allow.
It is the reason why every time you see Microsoft offering a Windows interoperability solution, it is either a migration tool, or so crippled that you'd have to be masochistic to use it. Services for Macintosh is the perfect example.
Robert: Live.com is going to do stuff that Google simply isn’t trying to do yet. More to come this summer. I see... Microsoft is doing great stuff with Ajax with "more to come" coming... Unfortunately, I will never get to see it, since I use Safari and, at most, Firefox. Pity.
iiRC, older versions of Opera spoofed the user agent string by default to pretend to be IE 6. In fact I can confirm that by using Opera 8.5 on Linux and going Tools -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Network and changing "Browser identification" to "Identify as MSIE 6.0" that the form on https://adcenter.msn.com/Signup.aspx loads just fine.
There really is no excuse for whoever designed that page to disallow users of alternate browsers when a simple notice at the top of the page, indicating that it *might* not work 100% correctly with alternate browsers, would suffice.
> Microsoft, at his very core, is feared as hell of everybody else. Call it hitech-xenophobia if you like.
quoting http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/xenophobia
xenophobia: pathological fear/hatred of the unknown
Actually, any fear of Microsoft is because of what we *do know* about it... consider Paul Thurrott's comments on http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_53...
"the bad, old Microsoft. This is the Microsoft that ran roughshod over competitors in order to gain market share at any cost. The Microsoft that forgot about customers in its blind zeal to harm competitors. The Microsoft, that frankly, all the Linux and Apple fanatics always imagined was out there, plotting and planning their termination. The Microsoft that threatens Windows fans with needless legal threats rather than reaching out and creating constructive relationships with the very people who prop up the company the most."
The way I see it, MS knows that IE 6 is in rough shape; new security vulnerabilities are routinely found and patched up, but more importantly to MS, its hemmoraging market share badly.
IE 7 isn't about getting people to switch back from FF (IMHO IE 7 would have a tough time winning in a fight against FF *1.0*, never mind 1.5 or 2.0...), its about stopping (or at least slowing) the mass exodus from IE. That's a more realistic goal. If you look at http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement14.asp you can see how bad its gotten for MS in Europe: about 20% of all Europeans are using FF, with some notable examples near or above 30% (Germany, Finland, Slovenia, etc.)
And based on my personal experience, each and every one of those people is now a good candidate for migrating to Linux, since the experience is the same regardless of the OS...
A decade ago, MS said it was "delivering on its commitment to provide full-featured Web browser support on all major operating system platforms" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_...) but then they won the browser wars and that was the end of that.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stat... W3schools is a site targetted at webmasters and the link above is their traffic stats. W3school’s traffic is 63% IE, 25% Firefox."
One excellent example of a site where Firefox has taken over (no doubt one of the places where "the most passionate people in society" go ;) is BoingBoing (see http://www.boingboing.net/stats/awstats.boingbo...)
For May thusfar, its 46.3% FF vs 28.4% for IE
Er... apparently, it *is* just a notice at the top of the page (but with a lot of white space to trick you into thinking you're getting an error page) if you scroll down, there's the form (though clicking on the billing tab doesn't work... I guess its true that they don't want my money ;)
You forgot about Opera :)
As per http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?custom=yes Opera is supported on Windows, Solaris, QNX, OS/2, MacOS, Linux, FreeBSD and BeOS (and on several chipsets).
Though AFAIK, Firefox is the only *open-source* cross-platform browser ;)
---
Which browsers work with Microsoft adCenter?
Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later. Microsoft adCenter is currently incompatible with Firefox, Safari and Internet Explorer 7 (beta) browsers. As Microsoft adCenter becomes compatible with additional browsers, we will update this site.
---
What do I need to run Microsoft adCenter?
Microsoft adCenter is a Web-based program that can be used on any computer. You will need to make sure you have the following:
o A working Internet connection.
o Microsoft Windows 98 or later operating system installed.
o Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later Web browser installed.
In addition, be sure to check that your system has the following:
o Macromedia Flash Player 6.0 or later installed to properly view adCenter reports. Download and install the latest version from Macromedia.
o Adobe Acrobat Reader installed. Download and install the latest version from Adobe.
o Screen resolution set to “Normal size (96 DPI),” and display resolution set to 1024 x 768 or higher. Consult your operating system's help for specific instructions.
o Microsoft adCenter ActiveX control installed. Add Microsoft adCenter to your browser's list of trusted sites. Consult your Web browser's help for specific instructions.
o Pop-up windows* allowed when visiting adCenter. Consult your Web browser's help for specific instructions.
* Additional small windows that 'pop up' over the web page you are viewing.
---
Wow, ActiveX *and* Pop-ups! Sounds like a wonderful place to visit ^_-
I'm beginning to think that future claims of support for other browsers was less of an afterthought than a statement like 'we're taking pre-orders for Duke Nukem Forever too' ;P
They obviously know that it doesn't work in FF because they've took the trouble to create a special case message for it. So why not do the job properly and write compliant html code that doesn't require you to be viewing the internet through a browser that has been hashed-up to be able to parse bastardised code?
Any company the size of MS that releases a public facing website into the wild without ensuring its compatibility with all the mainstream browsers (like it or not, FF is mainstream) should be ashamed.
It occurs to me that maybe the reason that they don't bother is because they managed to convince the DOJ that Internet Explorer being an integral part of Windows was necessary - so for people that are accessing Windows Update they will always have IE installed so there is no need for FF compatibility.
Just for the record, I am not anti-Microsoft, and the above is probably the only antitrust case that I actually believe was justified. I would just like to be able to browse the web using whatever means I see fit.
Sean DALY
The company I work at has IE on every desktop. I still use Firefox to start with because I support employees who sometimes work from home and may or may not want to use IE.
The bottom line for me is that starting with Firefox usually reduces my development time. BTW, I am not an XHTML zealot, I still use HTML 4.01 strict most of the time.
So I bumped it down to medium to see what the fuss was about. Wanted to see this amazing complicated AJAX usage. Um. All I saw was the page loading large sections without going to a different page...
Is that it? What exactly are you doing there that couldn't be done with static or semi-static HTML? In fact why isn't this just HTML? Why are you trying to use a markup language your own browser doesn't understand? Why do you have to trigger quirks mode in your browser to get it to work? Have the developers not heard of unintrusive scripting? Seperation of structure from style from behaviour?
There's nothing on those pages that couldn't be done in valid HTML. Any version of HTML really.
Lame.
So if Microsoft is gonna say no to Firefox, most of these "let me try" users just wont try their stuff!! Who else will??!!
The stupidity of adCenter not working with anything but IE is pretty obvious — a lot of the people who are potential customers of this service, like, say, me, are Firefox users. Right away, with a brand-new product and a lot of competition, Microsoft is alienating customers.
And to use two characters from the movie as metaphors, rather than behaving like Inigo and Westley -- fast, agile, lethal and working together -- Web 2.0 guys -- Microsoft is behaving like Fezzik -- slow, powerful, but lumbering. At the end of the movie, Westley gets the princess, Inigo gets rich, and we never hear from Fezzik again.
It should tell us more about MS business software, but instead the Firefox user sees a grey square.
And here we have something about the Balanced Scorecard: www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/content/dem...
The same level of grey content.
I guess you could try any of these links: www.microsoft.com/dynamics/ax/product/demos.mspx
All use the same method and all fail to load in Firefox because the embed-content is not synchronized with the object-content.
I repeat: it's more important to follow web standards than to "support browsers". If a web site doesn't follow web standards, it's likely to fail in any browser other than those specifically "supported". But if a standards-compliant site fails in some (less popular) browser, it may encourage the browser developers to fix the bug. In the end, it's better to work in all browsers but the buggy one than to fail in all browsers but the "supported" one(s).
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=18...
That aint a Mac vulnerability . You have to download and CLICK it.
Show something else :)
And the context you chose is totally inappropriate!Its like saying "speaking of bashing, my GF dumped me!"
Try somewhere else dude.
No. This is an absolutely wrong mindset. If a website is publicly accessible, if any Joe Q. Public can access it, then it has been "released." The term "beta" is a holdover from when disks were being shipped out to a certain large group of test users. It should be discarded. Applied to a website, the term "beta" is absolutely meaningless.
If people can access the website or service, then they are dealing with the final product you have put out there. As some people have noted, you essentially have one chance to get people interested in a website or service. If the site or service doesn't support their major browser (i.e. Firefox), they're not coming back.
http://www.firefoxmyths.com
Before the fanboys decide to go burn Redmond down they better come to the realization that Microsoft can support whatever they want with their web pages. I wonder how many of these Fanboys also support the Explorer Destroyer Campaign.
Another News Flash, if you have over 85% of the market you do not worry about the rest.
"Due to the complex requirements of presenting these lab content over the internet, only Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or later is supported."
http://staginglabs.iis.net/
Guess I'll stay with Apache and AOL Server, then. :)