Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube To Kill IE6 Support On March 13

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the if-you-strike-me-down dept.

Internet Explorer 282

Joel writes "Over six months ago, Google announced it would start phasing out support for Internet Explorer 6 on Orkut and YouTube, and started pushing its users to modern browsers. The search giant has now given a specific kill date for old browser support on the video website: 'Support stops on March 13th. Stopped support essentially means that some future features on YouTube will be rolled out that won't work in older browsers.'"

cancel ×

282 comments

Finally (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259456)

And everyone lets out a collective exhale "Finally".

Re:Finally (1)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259546)

And everyone lets out a collective exhale "Finally".

FINALLY

Re:Finally (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259602)

FINALLY

Re:Finally (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259616)

__try_finally

Re:Finally (1)

iloveterminals (1752250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259622)

about time support for this browser stops

Re:Finally (1)

smooth123 (893548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259716)

Isn't youtube a little late to the celebration, does it warrant special news...

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259822)

Yes, yes it does... because "everybody" uses Youtube to some extent.

Smaller websites can re-direct IE6 users away, but it doesn't make a big dent unless a large website starts prohibiting IE6 users.

Reading the article however, it looks like IE6 users will still be able to view videos.

Pish.

Re:Finally (2, Funny)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259854)

Yeah, it looks like any impact will be extremely minimal, at least in the very short term. The only way we'll ever be rid of this thrice cursed browser is when enough company execs can't get their daily fill of kitten jumping into box videos and start asking their IT guys why.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259892)

Yeah, it looks like any impact will be extremely minimal, at least in the very short term. The only way we'll ever be rid of this thrice cursed browser is when enough company execs can't get their daily fill of kitten jumping into box videos and start asking their IT guys why.

IIRC, support for IE6 will be phased from most (if not all) Google services including Google Apps, Gmail, etc. So there's still a good chance. Also, this now gives an excuse for a lot of people, preferably including other big players, to do the same, which will hopefully happen sooner than later.

Re:Finally (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259986)

For most companies if Google does it then it is good enough for your company too.

I have wanted to do AJAX based apps for a Long time, however I got a lot of push back. When Google Maps came out I could say that Google is using it. And it gave me a green light to improve my Web Applications.

That same with IE 6 now that Google isn't supporting it, you can make a case that you shouldn't need to do so as well, And your Boss should be happy to upgrade, Either to Firefox if he is still on Windows 2000 or lower. Or finally push to IE 8. That is unless you work for GE

Re:Finally (1)

piripiri (1476949) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259722)

Well I'll say "Finally" only when no one is using IE6 anymore.

Re:Finally (1)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259842)

RIP IE6

Re:Finally (5, Insightful)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259856)

RIP IE6

Burn in HELL, IE6!!

Re:Finally (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259920)

FINALLY!

w00t! (1, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259464)

With Youtube comes great power :)

Re:w00t! (1)

Mashdar (876825) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259508)

And industry driven HTML5 standards :(

Re:w00t! (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259538)

And industry driven HTML5 standards :(

Oh yeah. I'm not particularly fond of that one. Although some of the things they are talking about will be great, like offline data storage.

Re:w00t! (2, Insightful)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259620)

As long as html5 is patent-free, ok. Otherwise it is clearly unacceptable.

Re:w00t! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259634)

You're... against... HTML5 standards? My first reaction is to scream DIAF, but I'll ask nicely first: what you could you possibly not be "particularly fond of" with respect to the Internet finally working as it fucking should?

Re:w00t! (1)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259802)

Simply put, the H.264 Codec

Re:w00t! (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259908)

Simply put, the H.264 Codec

Hardware support for H.264 comes to mind...

How does H.264 decoder hardware actually work? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260148)

As I understand it, Theora is simple enough that a handheld device that relies on dedicated hardware for H.264 can sometimes decode Theora at 320x240 or 480x272 partly or fully in software.

But how does H.264 decoder hardware actually work? Does it involve putting an H.264 stream on one pin and getting decompressed RGB video on another? Or is the codec split between a CPU that parses the bit stream and a DSP that performs things like cosine transform and YUV conversion, operations that should be reusable for other codecs like MPEG-2, MPEG-4 ASP, and Theora?

Re:w00t! (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260324)

Something of a non-sequiteur, as the H.264 CODEC is not part of, nor mandated by, the HTML5 spec.

Re:w00t! (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260232)

personally, I am not fond of html5 either. The competing standard XHTML 2 is better (for instance is specifies the DOM structure, effectively eliminating most cross browser javascript issues), but it breaks backwards compatibility. With HTML 5 we will still need to use cross browser compatibility libraries or custom javascript for every nit picking issue with each browsers DOM model.

and great lock-in (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260202)

with their requirement on proprietary Adobe Flash.

Re:and great lock-in (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260322)

This is offtopic, but they have an HTML5 demonstration going with embedded video supported by that standard. If support for HTML5 video becomes more widespread, we can move away from Flash at long last.

It's about goddamned time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259474)

Why'd they wait this long? Stupid niggardly corporations can't even update a free browser and the rest of the world is supposed to accomodate them? Yeah right.

Re:It's about goddamned time (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259492)

Stupid mods, read first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_ [wikipedia.org] "niggardly"

Re:It's about goddamned time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259782)

Wow. You are so clever.

Re:It's about goddamned time (-1, Offtopic)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259800)

If you want to say stingy, say stingy. Quite frankly, if you expect to use a word like niggardly, regardless of its etymology, and not be downmodded, then you're the one who's stupid.

Re:It's about goddamned time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259928)

If you want to say stingy, say stingy. Quite frankly, if you expect to use a word like niggardly, regardless of its etymology, and not be downmodded, then you're the one who's stupid.

I like consistency. Let's take your logic to its conclusion, shall we? "Yeah, and quite frankly, if she didn't want to be raped she should never have worn a skirt like that. Right?"

So many people couldn't be so blatantly wrong if there weren't so many like you who are willing to support and defend them.

Someone who thinks "niggardly" is a racist or racially-motivated term is wrong, that's just a fact. Someone who wrongly believes it's a racist term and does anything negative to the person who said it as a result, has committed an injustice by definition. Anyone who sees injustice and defends it is even worse, especially when they do it knowingly because they are aware the word is not racial. You sir are a spineless coward who cares only about what the crowd is doing, not about what's right or correct. People like you are responsible for most of the injustice in the world.

Re:It's about goddamned time (0, Offtopic)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260100)

You sir are a spineless coward who cares only about what the crowd is doing

I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls... but apparently, you too care about what the crowd is thinking. Or why else did you chose not to log in?

Re:It's about goddamned time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260234)

Mod Parent UP!

If you want to say stingy, say stingy. Quite frankly, if you expect to use a word like niggardly, regardless of its etymology, and not be downmodded, then you're the one who's stupid.

This sentiment is ignorant, and promotes the 'ignorant is cool' wave that is sweeping our nation.

Anon because I will get modded down. See above.

Re:It's about goddamned time (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260164)

I'm guessing there's a reason they posted AC....

One has to wonder (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259482)

What if Microsoft was to phase out support on Bing for an old version of Firefox. Would that be MS abusing it's monopoly?

Re:One has to wonder (1)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259572)

I doubt it. Mozilla may be the first to tell you to upgrade to a current version.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259586)

Microsoft does not support Opera.

Nevertheless, I wonder if there is some cut and paste code to automatically ban ie6 users from your website and redirect them to a browser choice website.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259678)

etc.

Re:One has to wonder (2, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259796)

Of which these sites are also registered:

If I was a proactive sort of person, I would register *ie8*.com from your list, because the day will come where history will repeat itself. Maybe register *ie9*.com too, if you want to be really forward planning.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259950)

Why not just register *ie*.(com|info|org|net)

Re:One has to wonder (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259730)

well, yes you could do that but it is kind of mean. I prefer to give them a straight forward message with choices, such as this one: http://haystacksofgainesville.com/ [haystackso...sville.com] (you will need to set your user agent to IE6 or use IE6 to see the message of course)

Re:One has to wonder (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259948)

let me correct myself... You actually have to use IE6. I wasn't thinking when I was writing, I must need more coffee! To clarify how this works it just pulls in IE6 specific CSS which will render a big red message for IE6 users and leaves everyone else alone. I worked to maintain IE6 compatibility, but when I added the calendar, the javascript events cause the onhover workaround (an htc file) to stop working, meaning if you click on a calendar date it breaks navigation. I don't think it is fair for me to have to recode things for one 10-year-old browser when it works fine for everyone else.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260390)

You should post that code all over the place. I'd love to have something like that, but don't have enough CSS knowledge to actually produce it.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

SlothDead (1251206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259590)

bing does not have a monopoly

Re:One has to wonder (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259636)

I doubt anyone would be able to form a convincing argument that Google dropping support for a decade-old browser is any form of abuse of monopoly. They aren't forcing people to upgrade to _their_ browser - just a newer browser. IE7 or IE8 is fine with them.

Seriously, IE6 is a decade old. In internet years, that's about four or five generations old. It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.

*After all, we know it's only corporations that still use IE6 because nobody in their right mind _chooses_ to remain with IE6 on their personal computers.

Re:One has to wonder (0, Troll)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259940)

Even Microsoft want people to move away from IE6. Of course, they want them to move to IE7/8 which often means a Windows OS upgrade, but in either case I don't think they'll be too concerned by this (as far as I know they plan to drop security patch updates in three years anyway, so even if all the existing IE6 users switch to FF/Opera/Chrome/Safari, etc it will still be a good move in MS' view since they won't be hit with the negative publicity when they do stop patching exploits.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260332)

Uh ... it is really easy to install IE8 on XP.

This message is brought to you by both.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259970)

No one in their right mind, except all the clueless users out there that haven't been forced into upgrades. I find customers running ie6 all the time, and I promptly run updates.

Re:One has to wonder (5, Funny)

nagnamer (1046654) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259982)

It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.

It's just that the users will be the one that will be kicking and screaming. One of my colleagues was unable to play videos from YouTube, was frustrated, but assumed that there's no way of doing that. She didn't notice the (a) continue to video link, (b) upgrade to one of these comment. Someone should upgrade the users first. :D

Re:One has to wonder (1)

danbert8 (1024253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259984)

Oh yes, because Youtube working properly is a high priority at corporations. At my company we are forced to use IE6 (actually I use firefox portable with IEtab) because most of the internal websites don't render or work properly on any other browser. And they hate us using youtube anyway.

Re:One has to wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260002)

I do IT support for a state govt. We have tons of people still on IE6 and can't get permission to force everyone to 7 because of antiquated internal web apps that break. And no, we can't force them to fix it.

I'd like to see IE6 break in a major way just so we'd have a bigger stick to use in trying to get them to upgrade.

Re:One has to wonder (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260070)

It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.

Actually, this will most likely not have ANY affect on Corporate use of IE6, as most Corporation Masters hate things like YouTube as Time wasters. So it is with great glee that they will continue to demand using IE 6 for as long as they can.

Re:One has to wonder (0, Troll)

morari (1080535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259638)

No. If it's an old version, chances are that the creators themselves aren't actively supporting or updating it anymore. If that's the case, why should everyone else continue to support it at their expense?

Besides, no one would actually miss Bing. :P

Re:One has to wonder (1)

fatherjoecode (1725040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259652)

That would depend on the circumstances, but generally I'd say no. It would not be an abuse of its monopoly power. IE6 has been around since 2001 and the first version of FF was released in 2004. If Bing decided to drop support for FF v1.0 I don't see how that would be a problem.

Re:One has to wonder (2, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259794)

Given that, with the version of Outlook Web Access that shipped with Exchange 2007, all browsers other than IE6+(including most recent versions of Firefox and Safari) are forced to use "Outlook Web Access Light", while IE has access to "Outlook Web Access Premium", I'm going to assume that MS is willing to risk it.

From a market perspective, they would be morons to lock out any potential customers; but you'd probably have to prove pretty deliberate malfeasance in order to get anything legally actionable, particularly if it involves support for browsers that aren't supported by their own producers anymore...

Re:One has to wonder (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259964)

It's not like they're even going to be preventing users with IE6 using the site (at least in the short to mid term), just not supporting them with additional features. I'm sure at the most basic level it will still allow users to go to the site and view videos.

Re:One has to wonder (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259812)

Whether any whackjob would call it abuse or not, it raises the question: would anyone notice?

Bing has relatively few users. Likewise, old FF versions have relatively few users. And there's further selection bias against the intersection of those two small groups.

Nobody has made the horrifically stupid and fiduciarily irresponsible decision to pay extra in order to create intranet web apps that require users to use an old version of Firefox. The situation for IE6 is fundamentally different than every other browser in the history and breadth of the web. IE is one of Microsoft's lock-'em-into-a-legacy solutions, and a lot of incompetent planners happened to fall for that one.

We can only hope that someone learned the painfully obvious lesson. Of course, not everyone did. My own state government is spending tax dollars to develop NEW systems that are dependent on proprietary Microsoft locks, and it's pretty sad that no one is able to stop them.

Re:One has to wonder (1, Troll)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259880)

If IE6 weren't from Microsoft, but still had the same endemic big security problems, being actively exploited from everywhere, not interest in fixes from the making company and being used still by 10-20% of internet, specially in the corporate world, probably Google would phase out the support anyway.

Regarding Microsoft/Bing, Firefox never had so big holes, and so actively exploited, like IE6. And anyway old versions have very low usage, and odds are high that that users dont visit bing (most of its niceties are based on silverlight, they are excluding browsers/OS already)

Also matter how much used is an old, insecure version, compared with another "players" of internet, like other browsers versions [netmarketshare.com] , or even old flash player versions [statowl.com] . Only in IE the old, insecure and unmaintained version is widely used, in the others the most used versions are the latest or close enough, and without very big vulnerabilities anyway (ok, maybe with the exception of flash)

Re:One has to wonder (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260104)

What if Microsoft was to phase out support on Bing for an old version of Firefox.

That wouldn't be monopoly abuse. Firefox 3 is distributed for free as free software, and it runs even on Windows 2000 that can't run IE 7 or 8.

Re:One has to wonder (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260120)

No, there would be no outcry if Microsoft Bing does not support Netscape 6. In fact, does it now?

Google IS dumping older versions of FF (4, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260238)

RTFA

Google IS dumping older versions of Firefox as well.

Dead at last! (1)

Mantis8 (876944) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259576)

IE6 does not even deserve a funeral, so why mention it's death? Let this browser die and be forgotten forever.

Re:Dead at last! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259870)

To gloat is human...

Re:Dead at last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259972)

As with Shakespeare you must experience it in the original Klingon to fully appreciate it.

Good Riddance! (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259578)

As a designer who has been leaping through hoops the past couple weeks getting a website IE6 compliant because the client insists on still using the browser, I say GOOD RIDDANCE!! The sooner we can drive IE6 from the corporate landscape and force people to upgrade to a browser that isn't a decade old and out of date, all the better.

Re:Good Riddance! (2, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259654)

The problem is merely one of semantics.

IE6 == web browser // Major problem
IE6 != web browser AND IE6 == Corporate network app viewer // No problem

Re:Good Riddance! (1, Troll)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260174)

IE6 == web browser // Major problem
IE6 != web browser AND IE6 == Corporate network app viewer // No problem

Just use Firefox or Chrome + IETab. I don't get it why those big corporations don't understand this.

Next up, IE7 (4, Interesting)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259596)

IE7 is almost as much of an albatross as IE6 was.
CSS support is such, that if you want pixel perfect layout, you are looking at a seperate style sheet; and if you just serve the standards compliant sheet, your page will look like ass.

Update all "ie6 must die" campaigns, to "ie7 must die".

Re:Next up, IE7 (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260026)

The benefit of IE7 is that at least the upgrade path is simpler, since it can be pushed through the windows update process, so when MS finally gets on board with CSS3/HTML5 (hopefully IE9, but we've been burned before), maybe it'll decide to flick the switch and bring everyone up to date.

Re:Next up, IE7 (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260304)

Don't get your hopes up for IE9.

All IE versions including IE8 have a subtle knife to hold back web progress. IE doesn't style unknown elements without the hideous HTML5 shiv hack [ejohn.org] .

Re:Next up, IE7 (1)

bigblackcar (1072018) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260064)

Try using a reset stylesheet, it helps a lot with IE7. I've recently crosstested a site created with a reset stylesheet and the customizations for IE7 were negligible...

Re:Next up, IE7 (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260196)

IE7 is almost as much of an albatross as IE6 was.

The benefit of IE7 is that it doesn't support IE6 apps, and there are no IE7-specific apps like with IE6. So upgrading to IE8 or IE9 etc won't be such a problem.

Re:Next up, IE7 (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260386)

How about, "IE must die?" I know I'm being silly but still. All I ever use IE for is updating my WinXP virtual machine, which I keep around just in case my next gig requires it.

IE 6 Not dead in the workplace, doesn't matter (4, Interesting)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259598)

IE 6 will still be alive (and unfortunately not so well) in the corporate workplace all over the nation. In fact many companies are also breathing a sigh of relief along with us techies, but for different reasons. They don't want their users watching videos while they should be working. They are very likely happy that YouTube won't be supporting a browser that many of their critical one off, undersupported, buggy, POS (both versions of the acronym apply) IE 6 only apps do.

Re:IE 6 Not dead in the workplace, doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31259902)

Actually, lots of IT managers are waiting for this kind of announcement to make the switch. They have to respond to it, because it becomes a political issue. Users are always looking to get the latest and greatest, and IT is constantly putting the brake on new ideas in their perception. Upgrading the browsers is a relatively cheap way to put something fresh on the desktop.

But in the break room (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260180)

They don't want their users watching videos while they should be working.

Yet some companies still keep IE 6 on the PC in the break room.

Re:IE 6 Not dead in the workplace, doesn't matter (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260268)

Then they should mandate Lynx

Re:IE 6 Not dead in the workplace, doesn't matter (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260334)

Not really. I've recently worked for/with a couple of large companies (100,000+ employees) that still included IE6 on XP SP 3 to support some legacy apps. They *ALSO* included Firefox -- or a link to download it internally -- for everything else.

I've seen very few places in the last couple of years that mandated IE6 and IE6 ONLY.

Hooray! (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259610)

The thing about supporting obsolete technology forever is that the people who want the support will always want the support forever. Sometimes, you just have to cut them loose because that is the only way to get them to move to something better. And once they are on something better they'll wonder how they got along without it - with the cycle repeating. Of course some of their outdated applications will need to be updated but really does it always have to get to the point where you insist you need "Windows 95" forever?

Important Clarification: (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259642)

It should be noted that Google is not breaking youtube for IE6 users(the poor bastards). Doing so would be pretty stupid, especially since most of the heavy lifting goes on inside the flash blob, and people slacking at work are probably a decent sized audience.

They are just declaring their intention to no longer subject new features to the "can it be made to work with IE6?" test.

Re:Important Clarification: (2, Funny)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259890)

They are just declaring their intention to no longer subject new features to the "omfg how the f*** can I get this to work in this fscking old Microshit browser???!!" gauntlet of pain.

There, fixed that for you :-)

Re:Important Clarification: (2, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260074)

It should be noted that Google is not breaking youtube for IE6 users(the poor bastards). Doing so would be pretty stupid ...

Correct on both counts. From the fine article:

YouTube will have an interstitial appear when users on older browser try to watch a video on YouTube. Google says the interstitial will show up indefinitely every two weeks until the user upgrades to the most recent version of their browser.

Implicit in the approach is an attempt to shame the user. That, combined with the presentation of a list of options (supported browsers) will go a long way to dispel the erroneous notions of folks who associate the internet with the Big Blue "e", or otherwise think the world begins and ends with Microsoft products. Overstated? Perhaps, but if I was Microsoft, I'd prefer not having one of the world's best known companies reminding my customers that my products suck.

Interesting precedent, content imposing software (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259712)

I wonder what consequences will website-imposed browsers have. Perhaps we're heading towards some kind of content - terminal matching OS, where all content will come with terminal specs, and you basically install a dozen terminal emulators on your systems. Kind of like thinstation [thinstation.org] . x86 is pretty much becoming a kind of terminal, with hypervisors. And win32 or Linux a kind of content-packager-gui or something.

Re:Interesting precedent, content imposing softwar (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259838)

Not really. They're not imposing anything; IE6 will still "work" with Youtube for basic functionality. Google are simply saying that they will no longer actively support IE6 and therefore cannot be sure that any future additions to the site will work correctly, or at all with it.

IE6 over 9 years old and it wasn't exactly top of the technology & standards tree when it was released. The only reason it's been supported this long is because XP refuses to die and people have only really started to adopt IE8 on a large scale in the last 6-12 months - IE7s adoption was hampered too much by the relative lack of success that Vista had.

Re:Interesting precedent, content imposing softwar (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260218)

Websites have been "imposing" browser limitations for years, largely because browser interoperability was a huge issue just a few years ago.

Granted, IE6 was a significant contributor to that mess, since IE6 was Microsoft's "extinguish" phase of their attempt to "embrace, extend, extinguish" the Web a decade ago. They provided inexpensive and well-designed web development tools that put out code that only their own web browser could read, then upgraded both the tools and the browser once they realized the whole IE6 debacle was a mistake, but provided no migration path for the code originally created by their own tools. Refactoring code for homebuilt applications to fit web standards is expensive and timeconsuming and really offers no "cost justification" benefits to the CFO, so a lot of companies still have intranets and other homebrew web applications that were built to the IE6 spec and will not function under any other browser.

But IE6 is certainly not the only issue. As newer, better, faster, or just more convenient tools get integrated into web browsers and the sites that feed them, their older brethren have trouble keeping up. If you want to visit a site that uses newer technology, you have to use a newer browser that supports that technology. Fortunately, IE6 compatibility is really the only "backward incompatible" example, so if you stick to a relatively recent version of {IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, (other)}, you'll be fine. Keep more than one of them around, and you can always experiment to see which browser works best.

There ARE still specific platform-dependent plugins that specific web sites choose to use, such as Silverlight (the major reason why I cannot watch the Olympics this year - Linux Users Need Not Apply). But thankfully they are in the minority. Most recent browsers can support most recent technologies, and HTML5 is only going to make that picture better by eliminating the barriers imposed by platform-specific plugins.

And businesses rejoice!!! (1, Redundant)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259736)

This is one reason for businesses to keep IE6 - no more time wasting employees watching YouTube!! Hooray!!

And businesses lose out!!! (2, Insightful)

catherder_finleyd (322974) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260008)

YouTube is increasingly becoming an important tool, especially in marketing and training. For example, search for "PMP Certification", "ITIL", "iso 9000" on YouTube. Not to mention any number of technical skill areas.

Re:And businesses lose out!!! (2, Insightful)

delinear (991444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260128)

Not to mention that it's trivial for businesses who don't want their users watching videos to simply block the site at the firewall. Why throw out all the additional benefits of a newer, standards compliant browser just to save your admins typing one line in a config file? Not to mention if Youtube ever did make the site completely unusable to IE6 users by implementing a UI they can't access, it would be a couple of hours before a bunch of opportunists threw up sites offering Youtube content with IE6 support using embedded Youtube videos.

Bah (1)

Therilith (1306561) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259844)

Yeah, youtube wouldn't stop bitching about me using an older version of firefox (to escape the craptastic "awesome bar") on every. single. fucking. page.
I finally had to resort to changing the general.useragent.extra.firefox to 3.6.

Re:Bah (1)

HouseOfMisterE (659953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260010)

Try the "oldbar" add-on for newer versions of Firefox. It makes the address bar function pretty much just like it used to before they introduced the Awesome Bar.

Great... (1)

Shinobi (19308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259874)

Now we'll never get rid of it in corporate IT...

PHB: I hear IE6 can no longer be used for viewing Youtube. IE6 is now mandatory for all employees.

Re:Great... (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260050)

Funny because it's true.

Yay, but (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259956)

It is great that they are doing this, but I really do not see this convincing all that many people to upgrade.
Most of the people using IE6 are corporations, and not allowing their workers/students to watch youtube would most likely be a feature for them anyways.

Firefox 2 (1)

Leolo (568145) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259988)

They are also going to drop support for Firefox 2. Which I still use because Firefox 3 requires a newer version of GTK. Which I don't have because I'm using FC5 on my desktop computer. And I haven't upgraded it because I can't be without a working desktop computer for the length of time an upgrade would take.

Re:Firefox 2 (1)

Binestar (28861) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260396)

Statically link a version on another PC and use the binary.

Helping hand... (1)

mauhiz (1751522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259994)

In fact this could be helping their rival Microsoft, who has trouble advocating for global upgrades in corporations.

March 14th Might Have Been More Appropriate (1)

mano.m (1587187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31259998)

What better way to celebrate Pi day/Einstein's birthday?

IE7 (1)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260156)

So apparently IE7 is considered a "modern browser"???

STW (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#31260188)

I worked as a researcher at the University of Twente for a project that was funded by STW [www.stw.nl] , the Dutch funding agency for applied physics reseach. In 2007 STW forced us to use their new online database which turned out to be powered by MS crapware. It was completely unusable when you tried to approach it with Firefox, and even with IE6 it generated massive amounts of the most horrible error messages when you uploaded a file. After two hours on the phone with one of their 'supporters' who kept telling us to use IE, even when we had said multiple times that that didn't work, he advised me to install an 'IE plugin' into FF. Then I hung up and wrote a letter together with my professor to tell their boss that we would hand in our reports and articles in the old way because of their incompetent IT staff.

orkut? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31260270)

they could phase out support for everything and nobody would give a shit.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...