A conspiracy to kill IE6 (2019)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Engineers’ behind-the-scenes effort at YouTube to nudge users off Internet Explorer 6 is remembered as a turning point that helped end an era where one outdated, non‑standard browser dominated web development. Commenters recall the immense cost of supporting IE6, credit the shift to “evergreen” auto-updating browsers for today’s more consistent web, and debate whether YouTube’s quasi‑deceptive upgrade banner was justified. The thread also raises concerns about new forms of monoculture around Chromium and Apple’s Safari, weighing the benefits of standards compliance against the risks of any single vendor controlling the web’s direction.

Evergreen Browsers and Engine Monoculture

  • Many see auto-updating (“evergreen”) browsers as a major improvement that ended the IE6-era stagnation.
  • Concern is raised that convergence on WebKit/Blink recreates a single-engine world; others counter that Blink and WebKit have significantly diverged and multiple engines still exist.
  • Some argue a single shared engine would be like a “Linux kernel for the web,” simplifying development, while others note this already almost happened with WebKit, then Blink forked for strategic reasons.

IE6’s Role and Historical Context

  • IE is described both as a “cancer” and as a key driver of early web innovation: championing CSS, DOM, and what became AJAX.
  • The real problem was Microsoft’s stagnation and tight OS coupling (browser version tied to Windows version), leaving users stuck on old IE for years.
  • Early 2000s alternatives (Netscape, early Mozilla, Opera) are remembered as unstable or niche compared to IE’s dominance.

Developer Experience and Lasting Trauma

  • Multiple comments recall IE6 (and earlier IE) consuming huge fractions of dev time: separate CSS hacks, PNG transparency workarounds, crash-prone layouts.
  • Some charged extra for IE6 support or maintained large blobs of shims/polyfills just for it.
  • Even government and big-enterprise work required IE6 support well into the 2010s.

Safari, Web Compatibility, and “New IE” Claims

  • Split views on Safari: some say it’s “the new IE” due to quirky CSS behavior, form and SVG bugs, and OS-tied updates; others say standards-based code now mostly works across browsers and Safari issues are minor.
  • Specific Safari bugs (e.g., scrolling with fixed overlays) are cited as long-lived and nonstandard.
  • Market-share context is debated: Safari is dominant only in some regions and far from IE’s former ~95% monopoly.

Ethics of the “Conspiracy” and Power Dynamics

  • Some celebrate the YouTube IE6 banner as heroic, saving huge developer time and pushing the web forward.
  • Others criticize it as deceptive manipulation of users and an example of a mega-platform using its power against a competitor’s browser.
  • There’s concern that efforts which weakened IE helped pave the way for a new Chrome/Chromium monopoly, with Google now seen by some as a “bully.”
  • Counterpoint: the banner suggested multiple browsers (including newer IE), and Microsoft itself later campaigned to retire IE6.

Ongoing Legacy and Side Notes

  • IE-only requirements still crop up (e.g., NVR viewers), showing the long tail of proprietary tech.
  • Some commenters reminisce about the “pre-mega-platform” web (phpBB, vBulletin) and lament consolidation into a few large platforms and apps.