I can understand people getting hyped up about cool new tech like this, but the article has way too much hyperbole to take any of it seriously.
This statement is itself hyperbolic.
A lot of these advances are going to impact web applications. Sure if you're building a brochure site then you should probably stick to web technology circa 2000.
The article mentions 350MM chrome users, FF has about the same market share. That makes close of 3/4 of a billion web users who will automatically receive the updates that allow app developers to target these new features. That's a lot of potential customers.
Oh and for those who can't or don't know how to upgrade away from IE7-10 there's ChromeFrame. That covers the remaining portion of the web.
In other words... no, the article is not hyperbolic and feel free to take all of it seriously.
Most people who can't or don't know how to upgrade away from IE7-10 won't be able to manage installing a plugin either. That aside, I don't consider a beta plugin to be an acceptable answer to this question in any context.
Have you actually used or tried to deploy ChromeFrame? Its plenty ready for prime time, and features:
1. A 60sec installation
2. No browser restart required
3. No admin rights necessary
4. IE6+
5. Autoupdate just like regular chrome
Even the most technophobic user can follow 2 links to be able to use an app they really want to use.
And remember this is all about applications, not your average brochure site.
ChromeFrame is great, but it is probably against the usage policies of a lot of companies. Even if it isn't, most people are fairly wary of installing something on their company machine. You'd need the IT department on side to get broad deployment.
I'll admit, I haven't. That feature list is mighty impressive and all kinds of commendable.
That said, it still fundamentally is requiring people to install something on their machine. This is a difficult thing to do with the uneducated and often outright forbidden in the corporate world, so the two key demographics here are also the two least likely to use ChromeFrame.
Consumer traffic may make the bulk of the web, but the actual financial contribution towards web development in terms of dollars-per-user is far, far greater for corporate traffic.
IE may be less relevant for consumer traffic, but it is just as relevant for corporate traffic. Given that corporate use is worth so much more financially, it won't go away. The IT department in a big company doesn't care what the cool kids are doing.
I'm happy to serve static images to older browsers with an unintrusive note telling them what they're missing and how they can get it.
I totally disagree. Why it should be my job? Do you want to use my product? Then use the right environment where my product works as it should, otherwise GTFO.
I don't want my product be used by incompetent users. Its 2012, people ought to be educated about technology.
In a corporate environment? Anywhere from days to years.
I work for several years as a software developer in the "corporate world" and I can install whatever the heck I want on my machine.
For accountants, insurance adjusters, secretaries, lawyers, it may not be so simple.
Yes, a better title would have been "5 APIs that will transform the Web in 2023" or maybe "5 APIs that will transform the Web in 2018" but that's not sexy enough.
However, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand just because the timeline is sensational. The web is mature and huge, so any real, meaningful technological change is going to take decades at this point. That's a good thing, IMHO: the "browser wars" didn't really help anyone, user or developer.
I think "doesn't work in IE" could turn into a problem, if certain web services won't work on IE Mobile. It might be the best incentive Microsoft has ever had to make step it up.