Hacker News Reader

Comment by skyhook_mockups | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

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.

As my original post said this all applies to webapplications. If you're building a consumer facing brochure site then you neither want nor need most of these new web features.

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.

What proportion of web applications are funded by large companies? Obviously in terms of actual users, there's always going to be far more consumers than corporate users, but in terms of dollars-per-user? Any large company will have a large number of internal, normally web based, tools for all sorts of things - training, asset management, expenses, travel booking - and the amount of money that the company will pay for these tools will always be higher on a per-user basis than either adverts or consumer payments would bring in. Certainly sites with almost no broad corporate use - social networks and the like - will have fairly insignificant IE use, but corporate facing web applications will see broad IE use.

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.

> Have you actually used or tried to deploy ChromeFrame?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com