Do you think they'll really drop IE8 once IE10 is released next year? Firefox 5 will be released tomorrow. FF 3.6 support will be discontinued? Actually, it would be great if Google could nudge everyone to keep upgrading.
Or Firefox 4 when Firefox 6 is released in August? I'm curious about this too.
Of course, "not supported" isn't the same as "not working". For Firefox (just like Chrome), I doubt there will be changes breaking enough to cause a problem. The real question is if they'll start using features (e.g. canvas or newer selectors) not available in those earlier browsers for major functionality in their apps.
They can't, many businesses rely on Microsoft's browser lockdown support. For example strict IE from browsing through the local disk or restricting settings from being modified. Firefox and Chrome have virtually no lockdown support.
And once again, they list specific version numbers for IE, Firefox, and Safari, but just say "Chrome" for Chrome, even though later it groups Chrome with the rest of the two most recent.
I guess it's because they don't know for sure what versions of Chrome will be the two most recent released, but it's still kind of funny.
I'm going to go with the fact that unless you NEVER restart your browser, the likelihood is that you are one or two minor versions behind the latest Chrome code at worst. With Chrome's automagical update system, most users barely notice when an update comes down the pike.
True... however, a moderately large website I have access to analytics has about 5% of Chrome users using something older than 11. It's possible to install Chrome without enabling the auto updates, so exactly which versions of Chrome they still support is somewhat useful information, I guess.
More likely, since the versions of FFx, IE, and Safari they support are the versions of another company's product--unlike their own--they feel like they have to be more upfront.
That's because transitioning users from an older version of IE to a newer one can take years, while I think they said that when they upgrade Chrome, it takes about 10 days to get 99% of the users on the newer version.
They won't as long as they have a significant market share, but IE7's market share is like 6%. I think they can live without that, especially if it means pushing a few more users to upgrade to more modern browsers.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Stable means stable, be it server or desktop. Testing and Unstable are aptly named by Debian, and that's where you should expect issues to arise.
Thats not quite right. Being stable is subjective. Ubuntu and a TON of distro's are based on Debian Unstable. Does that mean they are unstable because of that?
Debian unstable and testing are a bit more unstable, of course, but they are still good enough for desktop.
Given how often Ubuntu breaks hilariously on dist-upgrades, yes, I would say they are unstable. Though for slightly different reasons than the ones the grandparent poster mentioned.
Why shouldn't they? It seems perfectly reasonable to exclude customers if they are unprofitable: in this case, it may be that google is willing to take a hit in the short term, with the view to allowing them to strongly innovate in the future.
They'll drop support once the costs become significant relative to the number of users. Right now, older IE versions have a much higher cost due to being built on an antique rendering engine - Firefox 3.6 is generally far less expensive unless you actually depend on certain more recent features because it wasn't missing support for so many basic features (e.g. think of the impact on your CSS without something like inline-block versus, say, box-shadow).
If you think that's bad, we're on Chrome 12 now... So they no longer officially support their own major release from a few months ago. I'm not sure what they're basing this on, but the major revision number doesn't seem likely.
You'll note that in the link it just says Chrome without a version number. They'll support their own browser differently. Unfair? Some might think it, but considering Chrome's success in forcing version upgrades on people it will work fine.
I think people are putting too much/too little thought in to this version number thing. With Firefox's six-weekly release schedule now they'll define a major release differently from the version number.
Sometimes OSes are deemed obsolete for whatever reason, and browsers -- all of them! -- simply stop developing for those OSes. This means that you're at least shelling out the cost for a new OS, which can be (1) painful (if you're using Windows or Linux in some cases) or (2) impossible (e.g. if you're using Mac OS X and Apple has decided that your hardware is "end-of-lifed" -- e.g. PowerBook G4). If you're one of the unlucky ones to be in the latter category, you actually have to shell out enough money for at least some upgraded hardware (perhaps in addition to the OS), or possibly a brand new (or newer but still used) computer, which will likely be a lot more painful than just shelling out for the OS.
The key point is that Google Apps are tied to browser versions, and browser versions are tied to OS versions, and OS versions aren't exactly consistent in their support or end-user coverage. Users who figured their current setup works well enough for now, and who for many years haven't had any reason to upgrade will now be forced to if they want to make use of those Google Apps -- or, they can take the much less costly route and simply not use Google Apps, or deal with "simple HTML mode" or whatever.
The worst part about this that irritates me most, though, is that many of these systems simply don't have anything wrong with them except that someone, somewhere, arbitrarily decided they were "too old". So perfectly functional pieces of equipment now lack functionality because enough people have arbitrarily decided that they "don't have" that functionality anymore, even where it might actually be possible.
On the plus side, it does mean that no one has to support old browsers' quirky and always-varied interpretations of the same chunk of code...
The upgrade difficulties in large organizations are often brought upon themselves with poor adherance to public standards and insufficient test automation. Last I checked, Google itself is a large organization, and they don't seem to have any worries over the rate at which software gets updated.
Google is a big organization in the business of developing web software. Most organizations are in other businesses. If I'm running a construction company, it doesn't make sense to have IT consultants come in each time a new version of something comes out. If it works, it's best to leave it alone, modulo security fixes.
Do you feel the need to upgrade your house's plumbing system and electrical each time an innovation happens? That's how most people feel about software.
When the electrical grid connecting to your house get updated and no longer supports your installed system you upgrade as well or you don't get electricity.
I don't. Why would I want to upgrade my fixtures twice a year if they're working and look fine? I'd be happy to keep the same set for 20 years, myself.
Is it really worth carrying a metaphor out to its absurd conclusion? A web browser does not exactly equate to a plumbing fixture, yet they both have maturation cycles that prompt people to upgrade over time. Browser technology moves faster than plumbing, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised by that revelation, yet when plumbing technology advances I will upgrade. I will upgrade sooner rather than later because the savings in time and energy pay off over time, just like with browser technology. The further behind the cycle I remain, the more it costs me to modernize in the future and the more it costs me to stick with the old. The literal time period is completely irrelevant.
