I wanted to check out what this link actually did, so I did a simple:
wget www.facebook.com/?redirect=somebadlink.com > site.txt
I really just had a little chuckle to myself, because, while this is extremely passive aggressive, it's not really hard to expect otherwise. I would do exactly the same if I were Facebook.
I'm just suprised that they don't link to either webkit based browsers (Chrome/Safari). You can only assume that when one of your biggest threats is Google (and MS own 1.5%~) you probably aren't going to send more users to Google's way.
All in all, it just made me laugh, since if you are going to suggest a modern browser, you surely can't ever give props to Internet Explorer ahead of any webkit based browser? IE is still struggling to implement the most basic HTML5 features.
All in all this is bad for the open web (both ways).
At least, there's no Facebook browser yet. But hey, it might happen as well.
They both want control over the net. Complete control. Client, servers, data.
They should buy Opera and open source it :)
No idea if that makes any sense for Facebook from the business point of view, but it’d be really cool. And they definitely can afford it.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, Facebook getting their own browser makes a lot of sense. They have a real chance of pulling off the mythical Social Browser.
Opera already has an extensive email client which they could integrate with Facebook Messaging, they have widget system which would also fit nicely with Facebook apps. Opera was always about integrated experience, full functionality out of the box, and Facebook could take it to the next level.
I’ve googled "Facebook+buy+Opera" that day to see if anyone had similar idea. The top story was something mentioning Facebook Opera in a literal sense, as an emotional roller coaster about some random privacy issue. 15 hours later, it’s all about the rumors. So weird! :)
No need to buy anything. Webkit is free.
That being said it's their little war for total web control (again client+server+data) which is really bad, and what I meant to express in the comment.
This is ridiculous. I don't trust Facebook/Google with all of my private data, but this claim is outrageous. Care to back this assertion up?
Not all of us believe search engines have some magical obligation to be complete or impartial. If you don't like the results you get from one, try another.
Hint: I'm a socialist.
curl -I -A "Firefox" "www.facebook.com/?redirect=somebadlink.com" | grep Location
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.
Interestingly, that page doesn't mention Opera.
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.
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!
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.
It isn't malicious, it isn't "stupid." It's "corporate." ("We'll fix it later.")
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.
Not to say that the people working at FB are stupid, but odds are that someone at FB made this page several years ago and this page has languished on the backburner with no attention since then.
IE9 was released April Last year.
It was brought up every release as a bug, but was always deemed to be a "not fix." I wonder if they ever took care of that.
It's certainly an important browser market share wise tho.
Chrome and Safari are both missing, even though they're the two most modern browsers available today. All the browsers they're suggesting are way behind WebKit-powered Chrome & Safari in terms of HTML5 support.
Chrome, on the other hand, is a great browser on every platform (including Linux!) and automatically updates itself (which means that you only need to get somebody to switch to Chrome once rather than repeatedly like with newer versions of IE).
Also, I'm not sure Firefox is actually behind Webkit-based browsers in features and certainly not significantly. I suspect Opera is pretty good as well although I don't use it.
Sorry, I just don't get why this was voted up or is that important.
There's even proof that they collaborate quite nicely: less than two weeks ago, Facebook engineers went to talk to Chrome DevTools engineers. Goal: improve Chrome's timeline to improve Facebook's Timeline, and vice versa.
On a side note: Netflix doesn't support Chrome on new video player. Yesterday I was watching movie on Chrome and I was dumbfounded when I was given notification that this is not supported browser.
If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If there's a known-bad client, it seems reasonable to me to show a notification of that fact on the "front" page. (Not being a Facebook user, I don't know how they might set it up.)
Also of note: all of those links are nofollowed. God forbid Facebook properly links to something it's explicitly, you know, linking to.
And obviously, it’s not the browser engine that is relevant, but rather the Facebook integration…
...so really, who is seeing this page who isn't aware of Chrome and Safari?
I doubt they spent much time debating which browsers to add here, or that this came out of a strategy meeting with Zuckerberg. I wouldn't be surprised if this was designed before Chrome was popular (perhaps with some styling fixes since then).
Even if they did exclude Chrome intentionally, they are entitled to promote whichever browsers they want to promote for whichever reasonable non-evil reasons they want.
I'm going to assume you've never done anything so pathetic in your life as to leave a web page with something less than the latest, greatest, most open sourcey, freedom-loving information.
I was simply trying to draw some perspective - "really pathetic" is a bit of an overstatement for not linking to Chrome on a browser recommendation page, and we all make plenty of oversights each and every day, so shitting on others for them is bound to undermine your karma.
Nothing personal about it.