Hacker News Reader

As mentioned above, this has to be a very small number of users who are sophisticated enough to bother instructing chrome to request the desktop site. So the bug burden would be small on an absolute scale, and could be ignored entirely by simply telling these advanced users the desktop-on-mobile was "as is" and not supported.

View on HN

The site I work on has hundreds of millions of visitors a month. A double digit percentage of our overall traffic uses our desktop site on mobile. It’s not the same use case as Slack but I’d bet it’s bigger than you think.

Also, bug burden shouldn’t be an excuse if your market cap exceeds $10bn.

Aren't you agreeing with me? The important thing is that, as a fraction of users, the number of people asking for this is small. Therefore, given the size of the company, the resources devoted to it are relatively small.

No. I think when you are big enough, a feature with even 1% usage is big enough to dedicate resources to. Slack made $168M last quarter. 1% of that deserves at least 1 eng and 1 QA full time.

Where do you think we disagree? I am arguing that bug-fixing costs are not a good justification for Slack to ignore requests for the desktop website from mobile devices.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com