14 ms·

I think the term "blocking" is a bit misleading. It implies they have it running properly in FireFox and are going out of their way to make it only run in Chrom

I think the term "blocking" is a bit misleading. It implies they have it running properly in FireFox and are going out of their way to make it only run in Chrome. It seems more likely they had an aggressive plan to ship inbox across Web, Android and iOS. And they started with "Chrome only" to save development time. I'm sure support for other modern browsers will follow soon.

couchand 12y ago
Except that with a few quick changes the application ran, so intentionally blocking seems like a valid description.
- Blahah 12y ago
  Changes that included disabling a browser security policy - not something it's reasonable for Inbox to request its users to do.
  - couchand 12y ago
    But serving all content from a single domain is a reasonable thing for Google to do.
- mahouse 12y ago
  That is not true, the application does not run, or at least not securely, with its animations, etc.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Running is not the same as running securely and with acceptable performance. You don't ship things you know will perform poorly.
diggan 12y ago
Yes, it is indeed functional in Firefox, with some adjustments to their animations, it would be "running properly". And yes, they are going out of their way to make it run only in Chrome since all the rest of the browsers are blocked.
- jaimeyap 12y ago
  Going into your firefox flags and disabling content security policy does not count as "working in Firefox". Also the linked post reports performance problems. Never assume malice when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. They shipped an awesome product as fast as they could. Firefox support is probably coming soon.
  - josteink 12y ago
    > Never assume malice when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. A technical explanation? You mean like Google disabling security checks on their own domains, violating internet-standards? Well yes certainly that would be a problem, unless they also controlled a majority-share browser. Oh wait. Does this sounds like Microsoft of the 90s yet?

couchand 12y ago

Except that with a few quick changes the application ran, so intentionally blocking seems like a valid description.

Blahah 12y ago
Changes that included disabling a browser security policy - not something it's reasonable for Inbox to request its users to do.
- couchand 12y ago
  But serving all content from a single domain is a reasonable thing for Google to do.
mahouse 12y ago
That is not true, the application does not run, or at least not securely, with its animations, etc.
Kalium 12y ago
Running is not the same as running securely and with acceptable performance. You don't ship things you know will perform poorly.

diggan 12y ago

Yes, it is indeed functional in Firefox, with some adjustments to their animations, it would be "running properly". And yes, they are going out of their way to make it run only in Chrome since all the rest of the browsers are blocked.

jaimeyap 12y ago
Going into your firefox flags and disabling content security policy does not count as "working in Firefox". Also the linked post reports performance problems. Never assume malice when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. They shipped an awesome product as fast as they could. Firefox support is probably coming soon.
- josteink 12y ago
  > Never assume malice when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. A technical explanation? You mean like Google disabling security checks on their own domains, violating internet-standards? Well yes certainly that would be a problem, unless they also controlled a majority-share browser. Oh wait. Does this sounds like Microsoft of the 90s yet?