5 ms·
Agreed. This is weak on Plurk's part. How were they harmed? Microsoft screwed up and hired a shady vendor who did a shady thing. As soon as they realized wha
by webwright 17y ago
Agreed. This is weak on Plurk's part. How were they harmed?
Microsoft screwed up and hired a shady vendor who did a shady thing. As soon as they realized what happened, they owned it, fired the vendor, and shut down the site.
Just because Microsoft has money doesn't mean that Plurk deserves it.
- TallGuyShort 17y agoI think you've hit the nail on the head - and that's exactly why Plurk is going about it the way they have: They're not expecting a proper legal repercussion to take place - they want publicity for themselves, and bad press for MS. In his previous blog post he begged for this to become viral.
- jamesbritt 17y ago" they want publicity for themselves, and bad press for MS. In his previous blog post he begged for this to become viral." But the upshot is that it's creating bad press for Plurk, because they're now coming off, in the words of another poster here, as petulant. I read Microsoft's statement, then saw the Plurk comment, and I thought they came off as a bit childish. Microsoft seems to have done the proper, stand-up thing here. Shake hands and be done.
- roundsquare 17y agoSeems like they misjudged. They wanted to balance out between getting sympathy and wining too much. Looks like they crossed that line.
- cubtastic71 17y agoAgreed again - if Microsoft was in beta too - it can be argued that the service was never fully offered to the public either, making the case even weaker...
- ivankirigin 17y agobeta badge != unavailable. A badge is actually a bit of a joke - a marketing tool itself so you can later say "our service that has been launched for years is out of beta!"