The DIV version is still pretty intensive on Firefox and IE. So much so that I really question whether the inmates are in charge of the asylum over at Google: They have been taking some big risks putting these tech demos on a homepage heralded for its simplicity.
If they're trying to use this as a way of saying "Oh really? Resource intensive? We didn't realize because we're using Chrome and there's no problem there", that's a very dangerous way of promoting a browser.
Having said that, agree with your core point overwhelmingly: There is an irrational love of Canvas that simply isn't merited.
SVG is absolutely made for this sort of task (a number of elements that you are transforming in size and place, etc). Again, as you mentioned, it leaves the primitives up to the browser where they might be hardware rendered and optimized as the client sees fit, instead of treating it as a dumb raster canvas.
I love the fact that Google is using it's biggest property/asset to show off fun browser features. Pushing the boundaries of browsers, and the expectations people have of what they should be able to do on the web.
FWIW, I really don't think it's a case of Google trying to get everyone to use Chrome, it's about getting people to do more on the web - which will benefit them.
It also shows that they're still at heart a 'hacker' company where they try hacky stuff out which is fun/irritating/cool. It's done it's job - gets people talking about Google.
Plus, if you just show someone a static google holiday image, that's had its day now. It's a bit dull. People want interactivity. They want awesome, not a static picture.
"I love the fact that Google is using it's biggest property/asset to show off fun browser features."
99.9% of users of google.com simply do not care. In fact, not only do they not care, they've seen this stuff in Flash going back to the 90s.
"Oh some animated balls...that's nice. DIVs [or canvas or SVG], you say? Who cares!"
I think it's neat because this is my field. Yet, for the sake of Google, I also think it should remain on a "cool browser features" page, and should be kept from destroying Google's goodwill.
And it is destroying Google's goodwill. The buckyball completely clogged a core of a modern PC on the dominant browsers. Fine (aside from the measurable power consumption) if you're on a multi-core, but a lot of people aren't, and it left a sour taste in their mouth. Suddenly being on Google.com starts to represent a risk that it never did.
"Hrmmm...PC is clogging up...did I keep the browser open on Google.com?"
Google got big precisely because they represented utilitarian, trustworthy simplicity. Excite@Home showed us what was capable in a browser, and that's why they died an ignoble death.
"It also shows that they're still at heart a 'hacker' company where they try hacky stuff out which is fun/irritating/cool. It's done it's job - gets people talking about Google."
I've seen this rationalization quite a few times and I find it pretty extraordinary.
Everyone is aware of Google. They know about the search engine. They aren't hearing "Oh some upstart Google has a core-clogging buckyball...I better check that new search engine out".
It is Google's position to lose, and they gain little by such stunts.
Google has let the hacker's run free, and it is poised to destroy the company. From Chrome using a single shared profile on a multi-user PC to Wave auto-following to Earth-destroying buckyballs (irony), Google plows ahead with things that I would not expect a micro-startup to do, much less a hundred billion dollar company. They need some adult supervision.
I can see where you're coming from, but I thought both the buckyball and today's logo were interactive and fun. Both ran great on multiple machines I've used so I had a good experience (and I like that sort of stuff anyway). Just throwing another opinion in here.
"You sound like you have a case of the 'mondays'."
Because I have a rational business sense, and an ability to empathize with users (the ones who really don't care that you're duplicating basic functionality of Flash from 15 years ago, only less efficiently)?
I appreciate that this site is Hacker News, and that we all love cool tech demos, but I would hope at least some of the readers here have some ability to see things rationally, and to have some degree of business sense.
Instead it seems to be veering towards the typical insulated-from-the-world, to borrow from Redditesque, circle-jerk.
Based on informal anecdotes, non-techie users seemed to have liked it. They don't care what the technology can do, or what technology is used. They just found it fun.
It is hilarious that we haven't managed to pull this off in a non-proprietary, slow, bloated way until now. The web derailed with IE and Flash. It was set back 10 years. Now we're on track again.
If they're trying to use this as a way of saying "Oh really? Resource intensive? We didn't realize because we're using Chrome and there's no problem there", that's a very dangerous way of promoting a browser.
Having said that, agree with your core point overwhelmingly: There is an irrational love of Canvas that simply isn't merited.
SVG is absolutely made for this sort of task (a number of elements that you are transforming in size and place, etc). Again, as you mentioned, it leaves the primitives up to the browser where they might be hardware rendered and optimized as the client sees fit, instead of treating it as a dumb raster canvas.