Tell HN: Firefox is being slowly deprecated by the industry
49 points
3 hours ago
| 15 comments
| HN
I found 2 instances within the last 2 days. Are there other companies doing this?

Apple Business says: There’s an error; You’re either on an unsupported browser or viewing this site on a mobile device. Switch to a supported browser.

https://business.apple.com

https://business.apple.com/abm_unsupported_browser?reason=Browser%20Type

https://support.apple.com/guide/apple-business-manager/program-requirements-axm6d9dc7acf/web/

An Immigration Attorneys' company says: Unsupported Browser; Our platform is designed to work exclusively with Google Chrome and does not support other browsers at this time. Please set up /log into your Alma account through Chrome.

https://app.tryalma.com/sign_up

Animats
1 hour ago
[-]
The immigration attorney company works from Firefox at

   https://www.tryalma.com/
or https://www.tryalma.ai

but not from https://app.tryalma.com

Nothing reachable from https://www.apple.com/ seems to fail on Firefox.

reply
rgbrenner
30 minutes ago
[-]
app.tryalma.com doesn't work on safari either.. says its chrome only.

So the story isn't really about firefox.. it's about Chrome's marketshare being high enough that some companies are happy to ignore every other browser.

reply
herpdyderp
28 minutes ago
[-]
Chrome is the new IE!
reply
karlshea
53 minutes ago
[-]
Not saying I like the situation, but Firefox usage is about ~2-3%.

That's about where IE 6 and then IE 11 were when everyone was excited they could finally drop them. Why should anyone treat Firefox differently?

reply
wfleming
1 minute ago
[-]
I'm with you, but I do think the situation can be characterized differently in a couple important ways:

1. IE was the default browser for many users (i.e. anybody using Windows who didn't know better).

2. IE had a lot of bugs and and was often non-compliant with standards.

Those two things combined meant that supporting IE required additional work, and if you didn't put in that work you were going to get users from IE anyway they'd just get frustrated and confused when things broke. So "detect IE and tell them use something else" was at least a reasonable fixed-cost approach to not having users get totally stuck. (And IE went down to 2-3% at least in part because devs revolted against IE earlier and started serving those "don't use IE" messages when its usage was still higher.)

Neither factor is really true of FF. It's not the default for any major platform, its user-base at this point is largely power users who won't be easily confused, and outside of some non-standard APIs most sites don't need and some fairly edge-casey stuff, most sites that work on Chrome will work fine on FF as well without alteration. If anything, IME Safari is more likely to need special attention than FF (but of course Safari has much higher market share so it merits that effort).

So I totally get not wanting to spend QA budget on FF, and I could understand showing a small banner suggesting you use a different browser, but erroring/completely blocking usage of the site does feel excessive to me, and even a bit mean-spirited since it takes extra effort to detect FF to show the message and prevent using the site! I don't think these sites are going out of their way to block usage of other low-usage browsers (some of which can alter behavior that could break some sites even if they are Chromium-based).

reply
minitech
36 minutes ago
[-]
People are using Firefox intentionally, vs. using IE because it was preinstalled. Firefox is a maintained browser. IE was hard to support, and Firefox is not. There are a lot of differences.
reply
p_ing
2 hours ago
[-]
This is nothing new for any browser, unless you believe in the mid-late 2000s Chrome was being "slowly deprecated by the industry" for sites that refused to work with Chrome.

These are just lazy developers, or developers who don't want to bother testing against FF. It happens. Move on. This is not some industry trend.

reply
gurjeet
1 hour ago
[-]
Oh, but AI has made the cost of development so low! It doesn't cost much to do cross-browser tests anymore. /s :-)
reply
MattGaiser
35 minutes ago
[-]
Well, it never cost much. For the most part you just need to install it into your test framework.

The problem is that the value of doing it is essentially none.

reply
coffeefirst
22 minutes ago
[-]
This isn’t true. Firefox users get really salty about this. They really will drop your product.
reply
amatecha
37 minutes ago
[-]
Oh well. I just don't use sites that don't load on Firefox. I'm already pretty used to missing out on a lot of websites because I just close websites that show a pop-over modal ad or video ad or anything particularly intrusive like that...
reply
paxys
1 hour ago
[-]
Spoof the user agent. I'd bet the vast majority of "only works on XYZ browser" websites will still work.
reply
batisteo
20 minutes ago
[-]
I do agree, but at scale it shrink the percieved usage of Firefox (and derivatves) even more
reply
Bender
2 hours ago
[-]
When companies or government offices tell me to use another browser I tell them I can not, dont have administrative access and make them input all the data for me.
reply
itake
1 hour ago
[-]
what should cost you about 15s of your time ends up costing you 1+ hour of your time.
reply
dugite-code
1 hour ago
[-]
Put your money where your mouth is

Be the change you want to see

Vote with your wallet

These are all sayings emphasizing going out of your way for a social good. This is just more of the same.

reply
stavros
1 hour ago
[-]
It's the principle of the thing.
reply
readthenotes1
44 minutes ago
[-]
It's a gift to a bureaucrat
reply
seba_dos1
46 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, and?
reply
_HMCB_
46 minutes ago
[-]
I get the unsupported warning even on iOS Safari.
reply
ggm
2 hours ago
[-]
What happens if you configure your browser string to lie about your software origins and compatibility?
reply
gurjeet
2 hours ago
[-]
That's a great suggestion! I used the 'User-Agent Switcher' add-on [1] and that seems to have done the trick for both the websites I reported above. (edit: I chose the option 'Windows / Chrome 146' in the add-on's UI).

As someone else said here, we should probably chalk it up to laziness on developers' part; maybe there's more to it, but I'll take that explanation and move on :-)

[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/uaswitcher/

reply
zdragnar
45 minutes ago
[-]
> we should probably chalk it up to laziness on developers' part

Also, developers at many companies don't own their time. They're given a certain amount per feature that they didn't estimate themselves, and the company doesn't give them time to fix Firefox specific bugs because it would cost them more than the user's monetary value is worth compared to other features or bugs.

reply
batisteo
17 minutes ago
[-]
Please use it only for lazy dev website, as it hides the global usage of Firefox
reply
rationalist
1 hour ago
[-]
The websites magically start working and I run into zero issues.

The developers are lying and trying to force people to switch browsers.

reply
8cvor6j844qw_d6
1 hour ago
[-]
Not surprised. A QA team I worked with only tested against Chrome-based browsers and Safari. If users hit issues on Firefox or anything else, support was just told to have them switch browsers.
reply
cozzyd
2 hours ago
[-]
You would think AlmaLinux would be a supported distribution (and that obviously defaults to Firefox).

I only use Chrome for Microsoft Teams there NASA insists on using (Teams doesn't seem to detect my camera in Firefox... And the teams for Linux app was total trash when I tried it, maybe it's better now if it still exists.). Is there a way to stop it's obnoxious trying to be the default browser every time?

reply
batisteo
15 minutes ago
[-]
I use the app on Gnome and it works fine, at least for the replacement of Skype (non pro)
reply
UltraSane
1 hour ago
[-]
Firefox + uBlock Origin is the only way the modern web is still usable.
reply
rationalist
1 hour ago
[-]
I run into this problem when using Firefox + uBlock Origin. The solution is spoofing the user agent in this case.
reply
big_toast
44 minutes ago
[-]
I think the poster is referencing that uBlock Origin does not work with browsers other than Firefox. And that while some sites work poorly (deliberately deprecating Firefox), other sites work very poorly (without uBlock Origin). Presumably spoofing user agents works for now but has its limits.
reply
rationalist
12 minutes ago
[-]
What!? This thread is about "unsupported browser(s)", not anything that uBlock Origin fixes.

For what it's worth. I agree with OP which is why Firefox with uBlock Origin is my primary browser.

reply
RJ000
2 hours ago
[-]
Who benefits from terminating service like this?
reply
bawolff
35 minutes ago
[-]
The company that would have to hire devs to make sure it worked correctly on firefox.

The business case for things like this is pretty obvious when firefox usage is so low.

reply
add-sub-mul-div
1 hour ago
[-]
In one of these cases Apple, who has a competing browser that they make tens of billions of dollars with by selling the traffic to Google. It's the top of the surveillance capitalism funnel.
reply
gonzalohm
1 hour ago
[-]
Surely they are not benefiting if people don't use their website because their browser is not supported
reply
andrewstuart
35 minutes ago
[-]
Use it or lose it folks.
reply
bawolff
38 minutes ago
[-]
This is what happens when your usage share is basically a rounding error.

I love firefox, i've been using it since version 1.0 to today.

However mozilla really has been directionless, its no surprise that nobody cares when the browser has basically devolved into copying everything that chrome does, but a year later and not as good.

reply
MattGaiser
41 minutes ago
[-]
Every company I have worked for has passed on fixing things that just impact Firefox.

In my first job back in 2019, a support ticket came back about a dropdown bug in Firefox. It didn’t even make it to engineering before they told them to switch to Chrome.

reply