Microsoft doesn’t support Firefox?

Darren Barefoot notes "I guess Microsoft doesn't want my money."

This pisses me off.

If I were Bill Gates I'd issue a memo that said "any team that ships without Firefox support automatically gets 3.0s for all members."

"Huh?" I'm sure there are more than a few people who don't agree with me. After all, if you live in Atlanta, you are supposed to drink Coca Cola products, right? If you live in Redmond, you're supposed to only care about Microsoft's stuff, right?

That idea and belief must be washed from our corporate culture. It's going to be a hard thing to beat. But beat it is VERY important.

Why? 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.

I was talking with Scott Isaacs about this today (he's the guy who is building the framework that runs Windows Live). He totally believes in supporting Firefox.

He's fighting for this too. I think it's time to say it publicly.

I won't link (or say anything nice) to any Windows Live service that doesn't support Firefox.

And, note, that doesn't mean I don't think IE 7 rocks.

233 thoughts on “Microsoft doesn’t support Firefox?

  1. Pingback: x86 Virtualization
  2. 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.”

    http://staginglabs.iis.net/

    Guess I’ll stay with Apache and AOL Server, then. :)

  3. 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.”

    http://staginglabs.iis.net/

    Guess I’ll stay with Apache and AOL Server, then. :)

  4. Cry me a river Firefox does not work with another website? Old news, get the facts:

    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.

  5. Cry me a river Firefox does not work with another website? Old news, get the facts:

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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=180066
    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.

  9. 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=180066
    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.

  10. 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).

  11. 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).

  12. 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!!!

  13. 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!!!

  14. Just try this with Firefox: http://www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/content/demos/Axapta/seq16/level0.html

    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: http://www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/content/demos/Axapta/seq11/level0.html
    The same level of grey content.

    I guess you could try any of these links: http://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.

  15. Just try this with Firefox: http://www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/content/demos/Axapta/seq16/level0.html

    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: http://www.microsoft.com/businesssolutions/content/demos/Axapta/seq11/level0.html
    The same level of grey content.

    I guess you could try any of these links: http://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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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??!!

  19. 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??!!

  20. 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.

Comments are closed.