Comments on: A Short Course On The Tragedy In Act One

By: mhoye

mhoye — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:56:02 +0000

Eric – if you open it up in Firefox, it says “Can only be played in Chrome”. Which is, of course, a lie. But hey.

By: Eric S

Eric S — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:53:03 +0000

I agree with you otherwise, but why do you blame Google for the Angry Birds demo? It doesn’t seem like it’s made or promoted by Google…the share link is even a Facebook link, I see no Google+ tie in.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:28:05 +0000

@mhoye: I don’t know about that — I don’t think that the bar’s been moved really. This same thing plays itself out in a lot of different places, and it all boils down to a lot of really big companies saying “We’ll make it really simple and convenient for you to do what’s in our best interest, at least until it’s at the point where we can start daring you to say ‘No.’” Wal-Mart, Google, Microsoft (back in the day), cell phone companies, cable companies, the list goes on.

By: Mihai Chereji

Mihai Chereji — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:07:38 +0000

I didn’t mean to imply your description was in any way unfair – I wouldn’t know, TBH, I didn’t catch that MS as a developer.

I consider bashing to mean expressing an overly negative, but argumented opinion on something.

By: mhoye

mhoye — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:37:51 +0000

Mihai: That wasn’t bashing, I think? At least, I didn’t think that my assessment of them was inaccurate or unfair; they were a really aggro-scary company then, in a way that they just aren’t anymore.

By: mhoye

mhoye — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:36:28 +0000

Yeah, it’s going to be a virtual host, not a physical box. And it’s going to use an awful lot of off-the-shelf software, but… that’s just not where the bar was supposed to be set now, you know?

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:34:55 +0000

we might be getting back to the point where you need to rack your own box and learn how to roll it all yourself

Admittedly this isn’t a perfect solution, but there’s plenty of smaller hosting companies that provide a shell-access server plus domain hosting, or you can even look at Amazon’s AWS (or some of the competitor cloud services that are starting to come out of the woodwork), so hosting it yourself isn’t as daunting a task these days.

By: Mihai Chereji

Mihai Chereji — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:19:08 +0000

Microsoft (the same bashed in the beginning of the post) released a html5 game that works just fine in all browsers – http://cuttherope.ie It just has an IE logo somewhere on the page.

So, yeah. good point. Google out-evil-ed MS in this case.

By: mhoye

mhoye — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:27:48 +0000

I wasn’t talking about just their search results, there, and I don’t think Page was either.

By: Mike Kozlowski

Mike Kozlowski — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:05:18 +0000

Does it actually work in Firefox? Including Firefox 3.6 (aka, the version everyone uses because they are morons who hate change)? Because if it doesn’t work perfectly there, then I can absolutely see why it’d get blocked off from Firefox.

And if it does… well, then I think it’s stupid. But if the purpose of that Angry Birds is to be a promo for Chrome and to get people to switch to it, then fair enough that you make it so it only works in Chrome. It’d be cooler if it worked in all browsers (i.e., it’d be a better demonstration of the idea that HTML5 can replace legacy Flash/ObjC shit), but if it’s intended to draw people into using Chrome specifically rather than HTML5 in general… I guess that’s not WRONG, really. It’s just kinda dumb.

For the “putting their own results” thing, bitchplz. If Twitter would let Google have access to all their tweets, they’d put that right there with G+. Twitter demands millions of dollars for the privilege, though, so you can hardly blame Google if they don’t want to pay for access. (And Facebook is even trickier: How can you integrate your Facebook login into your Google login? And would it be a good idea if you could?)