I'd guess their ie6 visitors are <3% - and I'd wager making stuff work for ie6 requires a disproportionate amount of their time, which could be spent serving the majority more effectively.

As a comparison, RescueTime's ie6 visits weighed in at about 3.7% over the last 30 days.

I agree, I'd imagine they have comparable numbers to make a decision like this. It'd be interesting info to know (anyone from 37signals out there? ;)

Any effort to push the web forward (away from old browsers) gets a thumbs up in my book.

I can only assume that FF3 was cleverly designed to be installable more widely than most other programs, which refuse to install.

Because some people just don't want to leave a dime from every dollar on the table. That's all.

For example, I have some shareware I sell. Brings me about $3000 a month. When I took Windows 2000 off the list, revenues dropped to about $2700 a month. However, about 50% of support requests could now be replied with "Platform not supported" because I could finally use new APIs that were only available on XP.

Your idealistic dreamy eyed attitude will be tempered by experience at some point.

But at some point, if that dime has to come at an increase of 20% or 30% in effort, it stops being worth it.

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/23/mobileme-browser-requirements...

Also, it is aimed at iPhone users, which is a fair percentage windows users.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

I clicked through the links on that page and the most recent month had this:

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2008/April/browser.php

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2008-05-31

Not that it's the best source of data, but.

The mere act of enumerating IE7 incompatibilities in these applications (let alone fixing them) represents a development cost that some companies will put off for as long as possible.

Then you could upgrade $(Initech) to IE7/Firefox, and slap the proxy between the users and the legacy web apps, and everybody's happy. When the internal developers upgrade the legacy web app, they can either keep it on the un-IE6-proxy, or upgrade its output and lose the proxy. IE6 can go away, we can stop wasting time with IE6 compatibility, everybody's happy, world peace, the end.

Disclaimer: I don't understand the nature of IE6 bugs very well at all, and I don't know if this is turing-complete or AI-complete or what.

"we got a problem here, uh yeah, the website is down"

http://www.thewebsiteisdown.com/

For example?

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that this was the same old "IT B.S." that we've been listening to for 30 years. You have to upgrade for our convenience but we tell you that it's for yours.

I know of many companies that don't want to pay maintenance. They say, "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?"

Is this move for the benefit of the supplier or the customer?

Honestly, I've constantly see remarks that say you're lame or old fashioned if you still use IE6, but I sure would like to hear one of these posts provide some concrete data why. (And please don't say tabs or extensions, those are features many do not see a need for.)

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.

I hate IE6.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

At least that is how I read it.

Sorry.

37signals has always extolled the mantra of usability. But, this move puts them entirely against that. You need to work within the constraints of the user, and one of them, unfortunately, is IE6.

From an operational perspective if they feel that this won't have too extreme an impact on their customers I think it makes a ton of sense from a productivity standpoint.

So do you think it's better for most users if they can fix bugs faster, respond to support requests faster, build new products, add new features (<gasp>) etc? I think it is. And I think blowing off IE6 will allow them to server other folks better.

Time is always allocated somewhere-- the time they save by giving up IE6 support can go to more constructive/forward thinking pursuits.

Only 37s has access to their web stats-- if ie6 is vanishingly small within their paying userbase, it's a smart move.

No one complains about IE5.5 not being supported by most sites anymore, but people still use it.