[gbromios]

What a deeply ignorant perspective. Too infuriating to ignore. Firefox users constitute <1% of my traffic. If you had any context for how widely browsers diverged on webrtc features (especially video), you'd realize that ff support could easily add months and months to dev time. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your notice that apple makes no mention of safari in their announcement.

my webrtc-based video conference app doesn't currently support ff and never will unless compatibility with chrome's implementation comes around. My manager would have me committed if I tried to pull that shit, and I'm already notorious for refusing to do things on principle. Suggesting that we don't support firefox because I'm lazy? No, vendors force us to choose, and if the alternative is NO video? Here on earth, where we're trying to cultivate a competitive advantage and survive as a business venture, that's an incredibly easy choice.

edit: other commenters have made the point much more elegantly than I but I leave my words here as a testament to how infuriated I am at this condescending suggestion.

[ivanche]

You made something that doesn't work in Firefox and you're now surprised that <1% of your traffic comes from Firefox?

[antipaul]

Just to note, Apple made no mention of Safari because then you are on an Apple platform, where you always have available the actual FaceTime app

[unyttigfjelltol]

> Firefox users constitute <1% of my traffic.

I configure FF to use a different user agent, as a security measure. It's a short hop from browsing the Internet with FF to disabiling browser identification.

[Thiez]

For a long time I did the same because some websites would refuse to load when they thought you weren't running Chrome even though it would have worked just fine in FF.

[gbromios]

Are you suggesting that ff traffic would be substantially higher if I were to account for users that were obfuscating their user agent header?