Top
Best
New

Posted by speckx 12 hours ago

98% isn't much(whynothugo.nl)
464 points | 306 commentspage 8
qarl2 12 hours ago|
It's just mathematical expectation.

Don't look at the simple probability - look at probability * value.

rossant 12 hours ago|
aka expectation
qarl2 12 hours ago||
Yes. That's why I said "expectation".
ryandrake 10 hours ago||
I used to try to make the point with non-tech people using the salesman analogy: If you were a salesperson who worked inbound calls from potential customers, would you be willing to handle 1 out of every 50 calls by picking up the phone, yelling "fuck you" into it, and hanging up? That's pretty much what you're doing to your customers when your software works for 98% of them.
docheinestages 11 hours ago||
Feels like it's 2006 again and we're talking about IE vs Firefox.
throwaw12 11 hours ago||
I'm fine if you want to hand over 98% of wealth in the world, its a lot for me
eknkc 12 hours ago||
I agree the general premise but do not agree when it comes to browser support.

I feel like we should be building for the 98% or even 95% and force the remaining to upgrade their browsers. I've built for the IE6 - IE11 era for a painful and long time. I do not give a shit if you want to use a 3 year old browser at this point. Go look at a blank screen.

levmiseri 12 hours ago||
This is very context dependent. It's 'fine' having such attitude when it comes to a hobby project or personal website – not so much for ecommerce site. And imo you are missing the key part of the article – graceful degradation.

Designing for the ideal (or for the <98%) is fine. As long as the experience is gracefully degraded for the rest.

silvestrov 12 hours ago||
Supermarkets often have so low margin that building for the 98% of customers means that all of the profit has disappeared.

Profit is often at the margin.

101008 12 hours ago|||
Some people are locked in old devices and can't upgrade. Basically you are doing class discrimination...
pixl97 12 hours ago|||
Which is perfectly fine for businesses. If I sell $10,000 suits then I don't care about people buying $5 undergarments.
egorfine 12 hours ago|||
Their inability to stay current does not constitute a responsibility for all of us to halt progress.
timw4mail 11 hours ago||
Progress, or constant churn for the sake of Google's stranglehold on web standards?
egorfine 11 hours ago||
Well this is another story.
zero-sharp 12 hours ago|||
I have a gripe with this attitude because it goes beyond browser use. Inserting the new fancy thing everywhere is often unnecessary and affects accessibility in a negative way for a nonneglible number of your users. And that was the point of the article, right?

Taking the conversation slightly outside the original context: if I go to a restaurant, should I have a phone and an app ready so that I can order food? If I go to the gym, should I have a gym app ready so that I can sign in? I don't like having to do that. But that's just another instance of this same attitude.

phkahler 12 hours ago|||
>> I do not give a shit if you want to use a 3 year old browser at this point. Go look at a blank screen.

And I don't give a shit about your site/content/whatever. If you don't work with Firefox or my old Mac browser, your whatever isn't worth my time. For "content" sites this is insanely true, even for "news".

pixl97 12 hours ago||
Using a 3 year old browser eh?, let me dig up a link for you to click.
epolanski 12 hours ago|||
What you describe is not feasible in competitive mature markets like good part of e-commerce.

As of 2024 at one of my clients we were still supporting IE8 and as of 2026 I still have significant traffic at some clients from IE9 and 11 or ancient firefox/chrome versions.

The reason is quite simple when you analyze the data: it's concentrated between 8.30 and 5.30 pm.

Those are people sitting at their desk in a bank or some different office. They cannot install other browsers, they cannot update them. Their perfectly working computers (for their job) may not even support newest browsers at all.

Losing 2-6% of the office hours traffic of those well paid-stable job individuals has an outsized impact on revenue and margins that cannot be estimated by naive data analysis.

In other sectors many users are B2B2C retailers in machinery or carpentry using the same computer they bought 15 years ago and they need to provide a quote to the customer in front of them. Single orders can easily be 5 or even 6 figures.

Small numbers in many sectors not only matter they have an outsized impact and a compounding effect long term.

pverheggen 9 hours ago|||
I get that some companies mandate IE11, they may have IE-first internal sites, custom browser plugins, MDM configs - actual systems that would need to be updated. And MS still supports it and releases security patches for it.

But being forced to use ancient Chrome/Edge versions? You are exposing your users to half a dozen sandbox escapes, and there's no big blocker from upgrading. Is their IT department asleep at the wheel?

egorfine 12 hours ago|||
> I still have significant traffic at some clients from IE9

It's been 15 years since IE9. Where do you draw the line?

epolanski 11 hours ago||
Depends on the revenue they bring vs the cost of serving them. It's highly dependent on market/business/company.

Often you simply don't offer the feature. E.g 3d rendered previews may not be available but product configuration and cart keeps working on a shop selling custom showers (you fallback to dynamic static images).

In real estate a page displaying fancy maps with price statistics by area/neighborhood might be unavailable, but the core business of listings and search does.

egorfine 11 hours ago||
> Depends on the revenue they bring

Fifteen years! Unless it's a government agency what's the point even in doing business with a company that uses 15 y.o. browser? They will pay you in silver coins according to 2011 prices.

epolanski 11 hours ago||
The people that work there are the customer, not the company itself.

And they mostly check your website when they are bored at work. Not when they leave it and have kids, hobbies or a household to care for.

In travel sector users predominantly navigate in office hours from their work devices. You go meet them where they are. 4% of 6 million daily users is 240'000 potential customers. Converting 3% of them means millions at the end of the year.

Maybe some like airbnb have (or at least used to have) a unique catalogue and they can play a different game and afford to lose some money.

Most e-commerces play differently, at different scales and enjoy different moats and different shareholders/owners expectations.

carlosjobim 12 hours ago|||
Why? There are no features which aren't supported by 10 year old browsers which can bring more sales or improve the user experience. So who are these new features good for?
egorfine 12 hours ago||
My development comfort is worth more than the service for users with vastly outdated browser.
carlosjobim 11 hours ago||
That spells lost sales if you're doing it as a job. Or at least lack of access for people with older devices if you're doing it as a hobby. Then it's of course your call.
iamflimflam1 12 hours ago||
Agreed - there’s a point where supporting old out of date browsers is simply an enabler.
Waterluvian 12 hours ago||
Covering for the 2% is often not a sound first order business decision. There's certainly higher order benefits. A lot of accessibility features are just plain useful for anyone. And I think companies like Apple generally get that it's a kind of loss leader. But this article makes dishonest TV Shopping Network style arguments like pointing at 150 million as if that was ever an addressable market.

I think either you argue for regulation, or you argue more honestly: asserting that the extra cost will likely never directly pay for itself, but it is some of the secret sauce that can a good product into a great one.

pixl97 12 hours ago|
I'd say you're the most correct of the bunch in this discussion. In the vast majority of business ventures the vast majority of your population is not going to be a customer, ever.

Look at statistics of things like apple vs android users and their purchase behaviors. Targeting the Apple users will likely bring in far more money in the end.

Also it's not your job as a company to ensure the user stays up to date and secure. Old devices are really just a risk these days.

thenewnewguy 12 hours ago||
This analogy is bad: Nobody is going to die or get food poisoning because their old browser doesn't work on a website.

A better analogy would be a restaurant deciding not to cater to the 1% of the US population that have celiac disease (cannot eat gluten), or the 2% that have issues with dairy.

londons_explore 12 hours ago||
In today's world of AI it's fairly easy to make your site compatible with every version of internet explorer ever.

Just tell the AI to do it. It'll find a way. The maintenance burden for you will be minimal because the AI can keep the legacy compatibility bits in sync.

cryptonym 12 hours ago||
> Just tell the AI to do it

This is the new Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything

flerchin 11 hours ago||
Good luck bro.
arealaccount 12 hours ago||
I wonder how much traffic from bots is skewing OPs nested CSS calculations
kstrauser 11 hours ago|
Huh, good point. I have a shocking number of visitors saying they use IE 7 on Mac OS 9 on Intel.
cj17382 12 hours ago|
This whole article is a categorical error. Whether something is good or not entirely depends on the frame of reference and the context. You can argue endlessly by shifting the topic that 98% is used on. I guess that's what people are doing here.
miltonlost 12 hours ago|
"Whether something is good or not entirely depends on the frame of reference and the context" is exactly what the article was saying....
More comments...