For clarity: the link is to the generic "unsupported browser" landing page. Chrome (and Safari) are definitely "supported" browsers. Facebook just doesn't show their logos or provide a download link to them.
Exactly. They can suggest whatever browsers they want. Much like how Google suggests Chrome whenever any page with their logo loads. It's not like Facebook is saying if you aren't using on of these three browsers then we can't help you.
The page is STATIC. It isn't being generated based on any logic.
So the "you're" bit is vacuous. They don't mean your browser. They don't [functionally] mean any web browser. The page makes a statement, but we need to interpret that statement IRRESPECTIVE of our considerations of how it is generated/produced.
Needless, ridiculous, digressionist pedantry. The point was (and you can verify this yourself) that the page reports visually identical content regardless of which browser hits it. So it's not telling you that "your" browser is unsupported, it's a redirect target for some other page.
How do you know that Chrome and Safari are supported? Is there some documentation of this? A list somewhere? If so, Facebook should at least link to that page from here.
No surprise there; Opera's market share is small enough that FB can simply code to the standard and worry about explicitly supporting the major browsers.
Although interestingly, if Opera accounts for ~2% of FB users (big if), then FB would have 16MM Opera users. Using the average of $4/user/year, that means Opera generates $64MM for them. That would be more than enough to justify throwing a few devs at.
Edit: Also curious is the pointless URL that page has. I would have thought FB would be using basic SEO on their help pages, so that someone googling "facebook supported browsers" would have a better chance at ranking first (it does for me, anyway). As an aside, the sub's page is actually the second result.
I would actually posit that they make much less money per user from Opera than IE.
Ie the type of individual who would click FB ads (or spend money on virtual gardens) is more likely to use the Windows default browser.
Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).
Safari I don't know, are FB obligated to inform people of every possible choise? Nope, they aren't. Now let's discuss something more interesting than this dull facebook page!
> Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).
You know that, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that someone landing on this page knows that.
It's in FB's best interest to inform people of what works and what doesn't. They certainly don't test every single browser out there, so putting the browsers they test on onto this page keeps users on the happy path.
Yes. They just want to get those guys going who don't have a proper browser, without scaring them away with too many options. Something or the other has to be missed out - and that is okay - to be fair to all browsers is not the objective here.
It does seem kind of funny to point people to Opera over Chrome and/or Safari. If you're afraid of showing too many options, why wouldn't you just list the most popular two or three that you support? Chrome is, after all, more popular than Firefox now, and vastly more popular than Opera.
That page hasn't really done much for my opinion of Facebook. I constantly run into it when trying to access public static content with an "unsupported" browser.
I do not believe your post adds clarity. What MIGHT add clarity is something like, "Oh, this is an unfinished error page" or an accident.
Any Web developer knows that now it would take intention, effort, not to support Webkit browsers (Chrome, Safari). I mean, if we take your interpretation, we should assume that laptops support, say, USB1, 2 and 3. They just _don't show their female ports_ on the panels.
Can we just call a spade a spade? Otherwise the whole page itself is nearly meaningless. "Support" becomes a meaningless word.
Moreover, that's beside the point. It's CERTAINLY fair to suggest that to say the least, without much analysis, we can say that this page implies that FB [intends] a better experience on browsers which are not Chrome or Safari. THAT is fair.
And it's bloody absurd. Chrome is now No. 1. And they knew that long before StatCounter had anything to say about it. I won't say "let's face the facts and say FB has a bone to pick with Apple/Google." But please don't go the opposite end of the extreme to argue that, "Oh, no, this page doesn't mean anything. Obviously FB supports [JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER BROWSER NOT ON THAT LIST.]"
I mean, c'mon... By this reason, FB supports Netscape 2, Firefox 3, Camino, Lynx, etc. etc etc.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not taking a position here or making an argument. I added the post because the headline and several of the comments seemed to imply belief that Facebook didn't support Chrome. They do, that's not what the joke/link/point/whatever was about.
I understand your sentiment. If that's the case, our concern should not be "what browsers are on the list"? It should be, like with Y!: "What does FB mean by 'support'?"
Comments
For clarity: the link is to the generic "unsupported browser" landing page. Chrome (and Safari) are definitely "supported" browsers. Facebook just doesn't show their logos or provide a download link to them.
Exactly. They can suggest whatever browsers they want. Much like how Google suggests Chrome whenever any page with their logo loads. It's not like Facebook is saying if you aren't using on of these three browsers then we can't help you.
They explicitly say "You’re using a web browser we don’t support." Even though this does not mean "we can't help you", I think it is close enough.
Yes, but they don't send you to that page on Chrome or Safari.
Don't worry, it says the same thing on Firefox and Opera also.
The page is STATIC. It isn't being generated based on any logic.
So the "you're" bit is vacuous. They don't mean your browser. They don't [functionally] mean any web browser. The page makes a statement, but we need to interpret that statement IRRESPECTIVE of our considerations of how it is generated/produced.
You cannot say that the page is static based on any URI. You have no idea what is being generated or not.
Needless, ridiculous, digressionist pedantry. The point was (and you can verify this yourself) that the page reports visually identical content regardless of which browser hits it. So it's not telling you that "your" browser is unsupported, it's a redirect target for some other page.
How do you know that Chrome and Safari are supported? Is there some documentation of this? A list somewhere? If so, Facebook should at least link to that page from here.
https://www.facebook.com/help/210310575676558
Interestingly, that page doesn't mention Opera.
No surprise there; Opera's market share is small enough that FB can simply code to the standard and worry about explicitly supporting the major browsers.
Although interestingly, if Opera accounts for ~2% of FB users (big if), then FB would have 16MM Opera users. Using the average of $4/user/year, that means Opera generates $64MM for them. That would be more than enough to justify throwing a few devs at.
Edit: Also curious is the pointless URL that page has. I would have thought FB would be using basic SEO on their help pages, so that someone googling "facebook supported browsers" would have a better chance at ranking first (it does for me, anyway). As an aside, the sub's page is actually the second result.
It's interesting because Opera is one of the links on the "unsupported browser" page.
I would actually posit that they make much less money per user from Opera than IE. Ie the type of individual who would click FB ads (or spend money on virtual gardens) is more likely to use the Windows default browser.
Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).
Safari I don't know, are FB obligated to inform people of every possible choise? Nope, they aren't. Now let's discuss something more interesting than this dull facebook page!
> Because chome is 1. quite new and 2. auto-updating without neither asking or notifying users (and that is G-R-E-A-T).
You know that, but there's no guarantee whatsoever that someone landing on this page knows that.
It's in FB's best interest to inform people of what works and what doesn't. They certainly don't test every single browser out there, so putting the browsers they test on onto this page keeps users on the happy path.
FB really doesn't test all major browsers? That would be very surprising to me as there are only 5 or 6 major ones.
Agreed. But they shouldn't toss about the word "support" without they themselves being clear.
It isn't malicious, it isn't "stupid." It's "corporate." ("We'll fix it later.")
Yes. They just want to get those guys going who don't have a proper browser, without scaring them away with too many options. Something or the other has to be missed out - and that is okay - to be fair to all browsers is not the objective here.
It does seem kind of funny to point people to Opera over Chrome and/or Safari. If you're afraid of showing too many options, why wouldn't you just list the most popular two or three that you support? Chrome is, after all, more popular than Firefox now, and vastly more popular than Opera.
Yea, but leaving out the #1 browser seems a little... intentional.
That page hasn't really done much for my opinion of Facebook. I constantly run into it when trying to access public static content with an "unsupported" browser.
One thousand times this. I see the same thing even though I'm using IE because there's no actual browser detection code running at that link.
I do not believe your post adds clarity. What MIGHT add clarity is something like, "Oh, this is an unfinished error page" or an accident.
Any Web developer knows that now it would take intention, effort, not to support Webkit browsers (Chrome, Safari). I mean, if we take your interpretation, we should assume that laptops support, say, USB1, 2 and 3. They just _don't show their female ports_ on the panels.
Can we just call a spade a spade? Otherwise the whole page itself is nearly meaningless. "Support" becomes a meaningless word.
Moreover, that's beside the point. It's CERTAINLY fair to suggest that to say the least, without much analysis, we can say that this page implies that FB [intends] a better experience on browsers which are not Chrome or Safari. THAT is fair.
And it's bloody absurd. Chrome is now No. 1. And they knew that long before StatCounter had anything to say about it. I won't say "let's face the facts and say FB has a bone to pick with Apple/Google." But please don't go the opposite end of the extreme to argue that, "Oh, no, this page doesn't mean anything. Obviously FB supports [JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER BROWSER NOT ON THAT LIST.]"
I mean, c'mon... By this reason, FB supports Netscape 2, Firefox 3, Camino, Lynx, etc. etc etc.
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not taking a position here or making an argument. I added the post because the headline and several of the comments seemed to imply belief that Facebook didn't support Chrome. They do, that's not what the joke/link/point/whatever was about.
I understand your sentiment. If that's the case, our concern should not be "what browsers are on the list"? It should be, like with Y!: "What does FB mean by 'support'?"
He clarified it for me: I thought that Facebook had stopped working on Chrome. :P