Startling to consider, I know, but… isn’t that what “Standardistas” and “Open Web” people are actually saying, when they say “Only HTML/JS/CSS is acceptable”?
Hear me out before judging. I’m pretty surprised at having such a thought myself, so I’m still looking for ways to invalidate it. If you’ve got a good argument, I’d like to hear it. But it’s a simple thought, and so seems strong.
According to the best stats I’ve seen — Google worldwide queries Jan07-Jun08, over a billion browsers — Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 is still used by almost 40% of the people out there. That’s a lot. Beyond that, there’s also about 40% of the world using Microsoft Internet Explorer 7. Another big audience. Beyond that, Firefox? One person out of six… 16%. A meaningful audience, but still, only one person out of every six. Safari has half the remainder, Opera is bigger on mobile, and 1.4% use even rarer browser brands.
For running Ajax, Microsoft has an 80% marketshare.
You can’t choose. Your audience makes their own choice. And 80% of the time they choose a Microsoft runtime to render your HTML, CSS, and JS productions. Microsoft runs your code for you.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, getting close to 50%. Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, dropping down towards 30%. Mozilla Firefox, less than 20%. Safari, Opera, Konqueror, and more which must be supported.
But inevitably rendered 80% of the time in a Microsoft runtime.
(I know, I know, there is the promise that the standards process will someday Shame Microsoft Into Doing The Right Thing, and that Firefox must eventually rule the world, and “Better IE than SL!”, but please bear with me, I was born a skeptical fella….
If you’re objecting to Adobe runtimes “because they’re proprietary”, then why would it be preferable to run nearly-all-the-time in Microsoft runtimes instead?
Such a simple question, seems like it should have a simple answer….