Hacker News Reader

While, yes, it probably is more convenient for 37signals than it is for the customers, it would be beneficial for the customer going forward.

There are a lot of CSS hacks that need to be done for IE6, which makes developing annoying and tedious, and takes away time from developing potentially better features.

Also, they can start writing code that capitalizes on better standards support and newer technology that IE6 does not have, giving the users a better app to use.

Semi-transparent *.png and ":hover" support and lots of Javascript and CSS bugs

Lots and lots of CSS bugs. So many developer hours have been wasted debugging IE6 issues it's obscene.

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere.

Try submitting an AJAX get request with a variable than ends with UTF-8 data (chinese glyph) and has been fetched from the DOM.

I hate IE6.

Aren't there libraries that handle that kind of stuff for you?

I got fed up and decided not to make things work anymore with IE, when I realised I had a folder of little tweaks that I was including in everything called 'IE Fixes and Workarounds'

Not sure how this applies to "30 years" of "IT BS". Previously, with shrinkwrapped, if you bought something, and it worked fine, you were in a position not to upgrade, and not have to pay for it. And if it works fine, you don't need support for it either. (this, of course, ignores the network effects of everyone else upgrading other than you, which forces you to, but this is not the provider's fault, other than creating built-in obsolescence).

Now, you maintain a relationship with the provider of your web-based software (one could argue that Internet Explorer does not provide a good "web" experience because it is so broken), it doesn't come in a shrinkwrapped package that you install and use. How this is different from anything else the customer owns is that the customer doesn't own anything in this case, they are paying for a service (technically, because of the law and license agreements, they don't "own" shrinkwrapped software either, but that's a side point). The service they were paying for ("ability to use the service on IE6") is disappearing. It's not economically viable for IE6 to be supported anymore (especially for user who are not interested in paying for maintenance) -- are IE6 users part of the long tail?

It's not 37signals that is forcing you to upgrade to use their service. It's Microsoft, who wrote the busted browser to begin with. It's also Microsoft for not easily allowing multiple versions Internet Explorer to co-exist on the same computer, thereby making upgrades more difficult to people to deal with.

As for if it is a benefit for the supplier for the customer, it's a benefit for both. Customers get a better, more consistent experience (including features deployed faster, quicker load times, both because there is less code to maintain), and suppliers do less work for providing the same kind of product.

(obligatory car analogy) Does anyone complain the same way about parking garages that have height limits, and about how they are losing customers because they don't cater to customers who drive oversized vehicles? They just choose not to support the incompatible customer.

"I don't want any upgrades and I don't want to pay for them. It works perfectly now. If I want anything to change, I'll ask for it and I'll pay for it. Why should this be any different that anything else that I own?"

But with hosted apps, you don't own (or license) anything. You're paying for access to something that will change over time, and may go away.

The ability to snapshot your environment and stand still while the world moves forward is dying. Even if you stick with desktop software (where you can install version 4.5.2s1 and stick with it), if it has any connectivity features, a vulnerability will mean you have to upgrade sooner or later.

They are likely banking on IE6 users also often have FireFox installed too. Chances are they won't loose any usage over this and I believe that 37Signals has an amazing ability to generate hype they will see more customers not less.

Myself, I have a lot of nearly computer illiterate people using my system with over 30% IE 6. If I can't get something to work in every browser that people use I just don't use it.

Good points. However, the benefit of the supplier and customer can coincide. If it's easier for 37signals to make their products, they can lower prices or add extra features or add polish or something.

Maybe they consider ie6 support a feature, and they think their customers will prefer some other features instead.

benefit of the supplier and customer can coincide

Most customers understand this and are willing to go along for the sake of a valued supplier. If they said, "We need you to upgrade to make life easier for us to provide for you in the future," most would say OK.

But when they say, "IE 6 can't provide the same web experience that modern browsers can," inquiring customers want to know what that means before they commit. My comment wasn't because I disagreed with 37signal's move, it was because they never provided any supporting data.

Does it matter which one it is in the end?

If they used the first line, I feel like the customers would be less inclined to upgrade and be averse to the idea of upgrading. "We're the customers, you should make life easier for us."

The new browser technology will never take off if people don't start switching over, even if the use some finesse in their wording.

I feel like the customers would be less inclined to upgrade and be averse to the idea of upgrading

Not my experience. Customers will generally do whatever it takes to insure a good supply from a good vendor.

new browser technology will never take off if people don't start switching over

True. So what's so hard about telling them why you want them to do something?

It's not hard, but how many people will really spend the time reading about it?

In my experience, customers with a non tech background don't care about the details, but rather if it will be better or not. If it will, great.

But I agree, it's being slightly disingenuous to the people who do want to know why, or are curious what 'web experience' they are missing out on.

One shouldn't need to include common knowledge as supporting data.

It's exactly this attitude that has given IT the black eye that we still haven't recovered from.

What's "common" to you may not be "common" to others. Especially your customers. Stop educating them and die.

Why is IT, alone out of every other business division, expected to provide common knowledge reasoning behind their decisions?

It's exactly this attitude that has given internet forums the black eye that they still haven't recovered from.

Stop being harsh with people, and don't tell them to die.

-----

Sorry for the mirroring; I know it's often done in spite; it's just irresistibly amusing; and seriously I don't think it's good to tell people to die.

I think you misread his post. Pretty sure he meant:

"If you stop educating them, you will die."

At least that is how I read it.

Oops, you're right. I usually blame misinterpretations on the writer, not the reader. Sorry. I can't imagine saying what he thought I said.

Just an expression to emphasize how important it is to keep educating your customers, especially if you're in tech.

Sorry.

Clarify this?

It is common knowledge that IE 6 has serious bugs and problems. I'm not going to rehash them, because they were discussed in other responses to edw519's initial comment.