[adamkiss]

What is this? There was no real argument, no mentioned technologies, that were the ice-breaker.

Sure, in IE6, even the PNGs weren't working properly, but, talking layout, IE7+ is mostly a question of 5-10 additional rules (on small scale websites) and IE8 actually works without any (mostly), save for a css3 features like border-radius, etc.

As for the design, having less visual effects and no rounded corners doesn't have to be a problem – most of the designs work without it rather well (not to mention 4ormat's design doesn't use plasticity, gradients and shadows that much)

This article would gain much more credibility if it mentioned at least one or two technological obstacles that take you more than 30 minutes to sort out.

[Jeema3000]

My feelings exactly. I would also like to know what it is that Internet Explorer 9+ "doesn't support" that is apparently such a showstopper as to merit dropping support entirely.

[mratzloff]

I don't think anyone cares about the design. They're talking about JavaScript implementations, which differ between browsers.

[adamkiss]

Okay, then it's the javascript. But what javascript (running jQuery+UI) providing async script loading and few UI elements, can cost $100.000 to debug on IE8+, for instance?

I'm not saying there [on the 4ormat] isn't technical solution that could be this expensive to debug on IE, but none is visible on 4ormat page and nothing less obvious is mentioned in the article, thus diminishing article's credibility;

You know, instead of something awesome like 'we implemented geolocation, offline aps and 20-years-too-soon-UI, so we ditched IE', they are doing 'Hurr Durr bad IE can cost up to totally out of my ass pulled $100.000'.