Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

98% isn't much

whynothugo.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 367 posts

Re: 98% isn't much

#211

Post by bilkow »

nchmy wrote: post #131

Its hard to find these stats now (need to use Android Studio), but about 10% of android users are on Android v9 and below. Android 9 support was recently discontinued by Chromium, such that they cannot update past Chromium 138. So, 10% of android users dont have web features beyond, at best, June 2025. caniuse.com does not track this - they lump all Chrome for android together in the latest version. This is painful a…

There seem to be updated stats here: https://composables.com/android-distribution-chart

Which seems to indicate about 4.8% are below Android 9.

But also, Firefox for Android still supports Android 8, of which there are 1.7% below.

There's a discussion to be made here about who is dropping support for these users, is it Google (and especially Apple, who doesn't allow other browsers on iOS) or the site owner? Especially given how insecure it is to use outdated browsers.

Re: 98% isn't much

#212

Post by ksec »

Some things are measured from 0, some are measured from 100. Depending on Expectation.

When expectation is 100%, telling me 98% success rate isn't enough. An example where the argument happens on Reddit, Macrumours and even on HN. When Apple's butterfly keyboard have issues. Apple Supporter was quick to dismiss the issue and point out the double entry is such a small issue because it is working 99.9% of the time. What they don't realise keyboard before that was practically 100%. That 0.1% error rate is infinitely more than 0%.

Another example is Internet connection When you are used to perfect Internet connection, just a small beep in disconnecting turns to be major annoyance. There are plenty of these examples especially with DOCSIS Cable modem. The modem theoretically is working 99,95% of the time, hence cable companies won't fix it. But Disconnecting 10 to 30 seconds every day is annoying enough.

I am not sure if there is a word or terminology for it so this could be better explained to people.

On the other hand, there are plenty of things where 80% is good enough, or doing above and beyond at 96% by getting 80% out of the original remaining 20%.

Re: 98% isn't much

#213

Post by throwitaway222 »

I mean 2% have their javascript turned off (either on purpose or caused by failing extensions). 5% are behind corporate proxies that block your domain. Are you going to host the site on substack also so those 5% can access it?

Re: 98% isn't much

#214

Post by eggbrain »

> Can you imagine a venue refusing entry to former clients 2% of the time just because they’ve “improved their experience”?

On the flipside, if a client enters enough venues that refuse entry to them because of something the client can fix on their end, eventually the client will probably change themselves -- "If you meet one asshole during your day" and all that.

To bring the analogy back to browsers, if a website works fine for a client, they'll have no pressure to change anything on their end -- why upgrade from Windows XP when the site looks fine in IE6? Eventually the client is forced to upgrade -- normally by their operating system. That works, but what if the operating system adds another 2 years to their end of life -- do you just hang on and hope the shim / hacks you added hold?

Re: 98% isn't much

#216

Post by ryandrake »

I used to try to make the point with non-tech people using the salesman analogy: If you were a salesperson who worked inbound calls from potential customers, would you be willing to handle 1 out of every 50 calls by picking up the phone, yelling "fuck you" into it, and hanging up? That's pretty much what you're doing to your customers when your software works for 98% of them.

Re: 98% isn't much

#217

Post by bee_rider »

igsomething wrote: post #157
account42 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You you can make a law that requires such businesses to use perfectly good technology standards that are widely supported instead of whatever EEE crap the latest Chrome comes with.

I agree, but one thing is to demand all your users to be on the latest Chrome, and another one is to support browsers that are no longer maintained and contain security issues (IE). If we discourage people from driving old insecure cars, we can also discourage people from using old insecure browsers.

Ideally we could section off some minimal baseline functionality that could be implemented more securely than the whole modern stack. Just HTML and a little CSS or something. Then mandate that, at least, services provided by the state should be accessible in this baseline functionality mode.

Re: 98% isn't much

#218

Post by fndkfkt »

explodingwaffle wrote: post #210
dataviz1000 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former chef here (2 Michelin starred restaurants). 5% is beyond plenty; it is awesome! > works for 98% of the population, that means that it won’t work for ~150 million people If I can only cook for 70 people a night, I most likely can't serve the ~150 million people who do not have access to modern browsers. And, those who do have access to those browsers and choose not use those browsers likely will not enjoy my fo…

man, HN is awesome

[dead]

Re: 98% isn't much

#219

Post by boogieknite »

betenoire wrote: post #190
nemo1618 wrote: post #187

After Christmas this year, I removed the tree from our living room, and in the process of being moved, it shed of needles everywhere . I swept them up, but I missed a few areas on my first pass. So I did a second pass, but when I looked again, I saw there were still a handful left. It struck me how removing >99% of the needles was nowhere near acceptable! Lots of cleaning jobs are like this, I suppose, because even a…

exactly how I feel every time I weed the yard. I'll end up with a pile of weeds, look over my work and see weeds everywhere still

then close my eyes to go to sleep 10 hours later and see them all again

Re: 98% isn't much

#220

Post by swiftcoder »

bradleybuda wrote: post #42
zero-sharp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like how you equate 10 year old browser users with luddites?

It’s very difficult for the average person to use a ten year old browser; in fact I’d offer that the only way to use a ten year old browser is to be an expert and do so intentionally.

Respectfully, you may live in a bubble of fairly tech-savvy folks. Most of my extended family run 10+ year old laptops as their daily drivers. Their phones are often on the second or third battery replacement. They don't install updates very often (if at all). For the most part they are still more proficient with tech than many of their peers.
Post reply on HN