> > Hi Cayden, > Thank you for responding, as this is an extremely important issue. Google has always stated their objective was to make the internet better, faster, easier. However, this SSL solution is a less-than-expected solution.
1) Charging $99/month for an acceptable solution puts a real roadblock in the SSL chain. Shouldn't Google want to make SSL ubiquitous, as part of their objective? $99/year is more of an acceptable rate, though still about double what it should be. $1200/year prices SSL out of the budget for smaller apps, and seems usurious. 2) I, too, think you are downplaying the incompatibility of the SNI solution. I believe that somewhere near 15% of visitors cannot use the SNI solution. We are not willing to block even 1% of our visitors. We pay Google AdWords too much to get them, just to turn them away again. I cannot believe Google would even consider SNI is an acceptable solution, turning away web visitors. 3) Detecting browsers and redirecting is a waste of resources. 4) Serving insecure content (when security is warranted) is unacceptable. 5) Breaking the security chain without informing the visitor is unacceptable. 6) Detecting browsers, and serving up a "Go away and download a better browser" message is absurd! Talk about giving the visitor a negative impression of your site. In summary, SNI is a poor solution, and not up to Google standards. VIP is a fine solution, but priced absurdly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-appengine/-/rbFBHQ4R29EJ. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
