The Webmail Wars 274
latif writes "Much of the excitement around Gmail has centered around its innovative
interface, but a pretty interface is hardly Gmail's biggest contribution.
Gmail's real contribution to webmail is its innovative business model. The new
business model is what's allowing Gmail to offer 1 GB storage quotas, and still have an expectation of making money. Of
course, Microsoft and Yahoo have noticed this too, and one can reasonably expect them to move
their webmail services to the new model. An interesting battle is shaping up
between the big three webmail providers, and my article "The Webmail Wars" analyzes
some possible scenarios and outcomes."
Battles (Score:3, Interesting)
Gmail kills them all in spam blocking and space...
Plus, now... they have free pop as well.
The privacy issue is the only thing that has been preventing my complete switch over.
Re:Battles (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Battles (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, there *is* no privacy issue - I assume your talking about the scanning of emails for targeted advertisment. It doesn't breach your privacy any more than a spam filter or antivirus software, and personally, I rather the adverts be relevant (and discrete) as in Gmail that annoying flashy banner ads in some services.
As I side issue, I use GmailFS to provide an extra, remote drive on my computer - will Google be stamping down on this, do you think?
Re:Battles (Score:5, Insightful)
Half the links they give are adverts, but the lower half are related links. The same links you get if you search for the same keywords.
99% of the time, I find the automatic matches listed there mean I don't have to do a seperate websearch to find out more info.
Its amazing how much more interest you can have in a subject if you can find out extra information about it
I can't be the only person in the world who feels that they are a good thing.
Re:Battles (Score:2)
I agree. And those Google text ads make a lot sense from business perspective, too.
They're using targeted ads which makes a lot of sense since people perceive them as less intrusive. Personally, I complete ignore them. I usually focus on the content of the email itself so the ads are mostly white noise to me. But a lot of people consider them a welcome addition. Sort of like a not-so-obnoxi
Re:Battles (Score:2)
I will absolutely guarantee it.
They've already made changes to Google to prevent people from setting options without storing the google cookie.
What GmailFS is doing is far more resource-taxing, and costing them far more revenue. The instant they have a workaround (that doesn't cripple Gmail) they'll use it.
Re:Why there is a privacy issue.. (Score:2)
Re:Why there is a privacy issue.. (Score:2)
If they wanted all of the e-mail addresses on gmail, why didn't they just say so in the first place?
Re:Why there is a privacy issue.. (Score:2)
If they can go to Google for that, they could just as easily go to Yahoo!, Hotmail, or your local ISP and have 'em scan everything for those same things. Hell, they'd probably even provide and install the scanning software themselves.
Re:Battles (Score:2, Interesting)
The question is how much of Google's GMail's features are patented, how the patents might hold up in court, and how easy is it to circumvent the patents.
Re:Battles (Score:2, Insightful)
For all the talk about labels vs. folders, I find labels are counter-intuitive. Here in my filing cabinet I sort documents into folders; I don't stick 3 or 4 different labels on documents and throw them all into the same drawer. It's crazy!
There are missing options like how about being able to permanently turn on Dis
Re:Battles (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Battles (Score:3, Informative)
That's why labels + filters =
Bolded so more people see it. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a way around this, and it's not very intuitive, I'll give you that.
Basically just label an email, then archive it. It wont show up in the inbox, and it only shows up when you click on the label on the left (just like regular folders, but you can have the sa
Re:Battles (Score:4, Interesting)
That's like saying you don't use email because you wouldn't blockquote when answering real letters. Of course you don't stick labels to real-life files. Do you know why? Because your filing cabinet wouldn't sort them by these labels. The computer (i.e. Google), however, can and will.
Re:Battles (Score:2)
I disagree, I think the labels are actually more intutive and easier to navigate.
Just stick a label on an e-mail and archive it, you can then just click on that specific label to bring up all the e-mails that share that particular label (hey, just like a folder). It
Re:Battles (Score:5, Insightful)
You're so wrong it hurts me!
Computer interfaces don't have to be exact mimics of the real world. They can improve on it too sometimes! If your filing cabinet could hand back the right documents when you just ask for some specific label then you probably would just throw them in the same drawer. Just because your real world filing cabinet can't do this doesn't mean an on-line version of a filing cabinet should have the same limitation.
Being limited to only one 'home' for stuff that could be categorised into many is what's crazy.
Re:Battles (Score:2)
My Yahoo! inbox is 2 GB. Admittedly, I'm paying for it.
I'm paying for POP access actually, so I don't quite care about the 2 GB -- I'm just quite sure that if I leave on a long holiday, the inbox won't be full when I return. By the way, there's a nice Yahoo business trick here: offer 2GB inboxes clients that pay for POP access. It's not like they use much of the gift!
Re:Battles (Score:5, Insightful)
So, how often do you go to the Xerox machine, make three copies of the original document and file the four copies in four different places? How do you keep track of the fact that you have done this? Do you write on each copy a list of all the other places it's been filed? Do you ever have to make a note on one of these documents and then have to go locate the copies to make the same note? You must have lots of filing cabinets.
The nice thing about labels is that there is only one copy of each document. Evolution handles this also with what I think they call "Virtual Folders". In the real world, of course, you must rely on the Xerox machine and whatever complex scheme you come up with to maintain these copies of things and keep them in synch. This is one of the many things from the real world that need not, and should not be copied to the virtual world. It takes some getting used to, but labels (virtual folders or whatever you want to call them) is a better system. Trust me.
Of course, for people like you who are already USED to some very specific filing system Google could have taken a slightly different approach. I would have (and have suggested) that they allow for "move" and "copy" operations between the labeled groupings. So rather than apply label "friends" to a new message and then Archive it (to remove it from my Inbox), simply "move"ing it to "Friends" would have the same effect. I could also "move" a message from one label category to another in order to remove the old label and attach the new, or "Copy" from one label grouping to another in order to have both labels. The advantage of this paradigm is that it saves a step in most cases. It would also satisfy the needs of some people for the paradigm they are used to. The only "odd" thing about my way of doing it would be the need to warn a user if they were about to delete the last "copy" of a message. Deleting all but the last "copy" of a message would simply be removing extra labels from it, deleting the last copy would be marking it for trash. At no time would there actually be more than one copy of the file though.
I suspect some future versions of file systems will take this approach too, using "links" to store the apparent copies without the user having to do that explicitly. Some extra tools would be required to allow for backups (when you actually want a copy) or clean-ups when you actually want to delete files. File systems that implemented this at a low enough level would save a lot of fragmentation as well, since a lot of files that are opened for update end up never actually getting updated.
Re:Battles (Score:3, Interesting)
Example:
If I were to run the following commands on a *nix system today, here's what would happen:
cp ~/foo.txt ~/bar.txt
the above line would copy the contents of file to another area on the hard disk and insert a record into the file tables. If this is a 10GB file, then your hard drive just lost 10GB of free space.
What the grand-parent was suggesting was, instead of copying
Re:Battles (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Battles (Score:2)
Like the parent, I find that Gmail works just fine.
Not only is Hotmail a joke, but they are full of idle promises. How long ago did they promise 250 MB for each account? And I'm still running on 2 MB? The new credit cards they hand out have almost as much memory as a Hotmail account, which is just sad. But hey, we all knew it was a Microsoft
Re:Battles (Score:2)
hmm, me and my wife are at 250mb now on free hotmail. Too bad Gmail KICKS A LLAMAS ASS ! So long hotmail.
Re:Battles (Score:2)
Re:Battles (Score:2)
Re:Battles (Score:3, Interesting)
They repost usenet articles as being written as their "experts" without mentioning it's Usenet.
Their users spam usenet with useless crap that is the modern version of the AOL'ers first visits there. (Where the [AOL] Me too![/AOL] thing came from.)
I can imagine the mail admins at Yahoo.com got tired of them for other reasons.
If I had my way, EE would get chased off the net with extreme predjudice. You should stop using them rather than stop using Yahoo.
Re:Battles (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that it's both a joke and a stunt
I think the biggest impact of Google to both Yahoo and Hotmail is that both services are now having to give away for free service levels that they were previously charging for. My guess is that sign-ups for these extended services are way down, and those who are signing up are doing so because they actually intend to make use of all that extra storage (2-gig for Yahoo for example) and are going to want to be on the phone yelling at someone anytime it's not available. In other words those that do pay for these formerly free services are going to be the squeaky wheel types that will eat up all your proffit margin.
It hasn't been that long (1999 or so) since several companies were offering free online disk storage, online word processing and several other services. The dot-com-bust made them all dry up real fast. I'm glad to see the moneyed players start testing these waters again though since I think the future of computing (especially for the home user) is going to be free or near-free online services rather than having to have an ad-hoc systems administrator in every household in the land. The Microsoft "everything on your desktop" model was moronic from the get-go and it took a "genius" like Bill Gates to actually profit so well from such a bad idea. Now if we could get back to true technology, which was already in progress before the Microsoft interruption.
Re:Battles (Score:2)
Pisses me off.
Re:Battles (Score:2, Insightful)
Size matters when it comes to Webmail (Score:2)
Google: 1,000 MBytes
Hotmail: 250 MBytes
Yahoo: 100 Mbytes
Just my $0,02 ... (Score:2)
It's actually 1,024 Mbytes (1 Gbyte), although Google displays 1,000 Mbytes. I don't really know why, perhaps to avoid confusing less-techie users.
Re:Size matters when it comes to Webmail (Score:2)
And you wont be waiting long for the 2MB inbox to get larger, the paid subscribers and new users are getting upgraded first, it's an ongoing thing, some users have the upgrade, some don't. The upgrade is in progress.
I would assume free users are getting upgraded last is so that things like your 2MB of mail being deleted due to an upgrade glitch wouldn't make you unhappy.
Re:Size matters when it comes to Webmail (Score:2)
Hotmail was good... (Score:3, Interesting)
My webhost gives me e-mail addresses. I just use them. I do have a gmail addy and it's nice. XD;
Moll.
Webmail vs "regular" mail (Score:4, Insightful)
The only answers I can think of is to have a "safe" spot for addresses where you may end up getting a lot of spam. Or "secret" accounts. Or multiple accounts. And that's why I find these webmail wars fascinating...wars are being fought over this with the major players in the industry over something so seemingly unimportant (as say compared to OS wars, browser wars, etc)
Re:Webmail vs "regular" mail (Score:5, Interesting)
a) I can access it anywhere.
b) It's free.
c) It doesn't change when I change ISP.
d) It's backed-up properly by a commercial vendor, which is better than I can offer myself.
e) Spam filtering is generally great.
f) POP3 boxes are usually 30mb, which will fill in a week. Gmail is 1gig, that'll fill in a year.
Personally, I use addresses at my own domain, and just foward the whole lot to gmail. Works a treat, and if gmail fails I'll just forward to my POP3 box again..
Re:Webmail vs "regular" mail (Score:2)
a) I can access it anywhere.
b) It's dammed cheap.
c) It doesn't change when I change ISP.
d) It's backed-up properly by a commercial vendor
e) Spam filtering is better than anywhere else.
f) It has actual folders.
f) I can access it by SSL POP/IMAP.
g) I can read mail far faster in a MUA
h) I can flag/label/color/mark/delete mail far faster.
i) I can download all new mail, and read it offline.
etc.
Not to evagelize spamcop.net mail, but it makes a good comparison, IMHO.
Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary reason google 'scanning my email' doesnt concern me is that google has a reputation for being honest. That google has attained that reputation gains absolutely nothing for Yahoo (spammer, spam supporter) or MS (convicted monopolist)
I trust google several orders of magnitude further than I would trust Yahoo or MS. I would *never* use a hotmail or yahoomail account for anything other than a throwaway - yet I have in fact started using a gmail account for normal email.
Anyone who lists an @yahoo.com or @hotmail.com email address anywhere even remotely business-related is showing that they are 'part of the consumer herd' - an @gmail.com address, on the other hand, suggests an air of elitism.
If they follow this model, Im sure Yahoo and MS's ads will be flash and javascript popup ridden - Gmails ads are much less intrusive.
Google knew exactly what they are doing - they arent looking for mass market share of morons.
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
I may be a gmail fanboy, but give me a break. If you list your email address domain as any webmail provider, you are going to lose my business. Sure, you can use gmail for your email address, but buy a domain and forward the email. Crap, it's only a few bucks a year.
Remember also
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are way too elitist (is that right english? I'm not a native english speaker) if you require people to have their own email service. What's the point in that exactly? I'm certainly not willing to pay for such a thing.
Greetings,
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
And even if they DO, my ISP doesn't. Switching to another would cost more than a forwarded domain, too.
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
Ya know, for what it's worth I have never lost a message while using yahoo or gmail. I can't say that for some other providers.
Sometimes, people don't want to use their regular/profesional/work email address.
E-mail is e-mail is e-mail no matter how you fold it.
Re:Not likely (Score:2, Insightful)
Doing business with a @hotmail or @gmail email address would make me feel uneasy.
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
That introduces another point of failure in your communications. Now you're denied your email if your few-bucks-a-year site goes down OR if gmail goes down. Worst of both worlds.
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
OR if the internet is completely destroyed OR if there is a global nuclear war OR if an alligator bites your hands off.
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
I believe Google when they say that all they want to do is target ads at me. If they, or Yahoo or Microsoft, wanted to really invade my privacy it wouldn't require continuously scanning my mail; they'd just read it once by human and learn whatever they want to learn.
Or if the FBI decided it was time to check up on my little...
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for long.
attitude and model (Score:5, Insightful)
@gmail.com will not be a mark of the 'elite' for long. GMail is going for the mass market.
And the point is, it's not entirely Google culture -- it's that GMail's business model doesn't require distraction. Their model is based on ads being relevant. If other webmail providers come up with similar relevance technology, they may become as sleek and non-intrusive as GMail.
But you're right -- attitude matters. MS and Yahoo work by traditional techniques, i.e. dangling tasty candy to consumers, in order to deliver eyeballs to corporations. From the era of television.
Google, thankfully, has a different attitude. They're not trying to go against the nature of the web and make it more like TV. They're trying to draw more businesses into the internet way of doing things.
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
That reputation may not be well earned, somoene reported that his Gmail account was cancelled because he had warez in it [spdrivers.net]. While copyright infringement is illegal, I don't want any of my service providers scanning stuff for illegal activity without a good reason.
Re:Not likely (Score:2)
I don't want any of my service providers scanning stuff for illegal activity without a good reason
The fact that you are using their service on their hardware for illegal activities is not a good reason? If you were Google, would you want to potentially be held accountable for someone else's illegal actions using your services?
Also, I don't see how this affects Google's honesty. Gmail is a privilege, not a right, and ultimately Google doesn't have to put up with crap from its users like warez trafficking
Just found out one reason gmail is better (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just found out one reason gmail is better (Score:2)
If I send a Japanese message from a regular pop3 account to Hotmail or Yahoo things displayed fine on the other end.
If I send the same message using Gmail, the recipient ends up with garbage (even if sent to yahoo.co.jp). However, if the recipient downloads the message using pop3, it once again displays correctly. It is worth noting that I have tried manually adjusting the e
Re:Just found out one reason gmail is better (Score:2)
Yet gmail's interface is in english only. Yay, interconnected world. Even if you speak good english, and you have your yahoo or hotmail account in spanish, you can't use the import contact feature, because it fucks up with anything not in english.
Re:Just found out one reason gmail is better (Score:2)
Spam filtering and search. (Score:2)
there are also things like an excellent spam filter and search feature. If gmail offered 100 mb instead of a gig - i'd still sign up because of the above.
Text vs. Graphic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, but then you block the obnoxious ads (Score:2)
Exactly why gmail beats the competition in this department.
I don't need the blocker to use gmail.
Simpler is better and Yahoo doesn't get mixed messages about what customers (email users) prefer, since I don't use the email service that is putting up graphical ads.Its also the only service that can logically work (Score:4, Interesting)
Due to the nature of hotmail and yahoo, and the lack of searching, even deleting 50 emails is difficult. Even worse, the spam detection on hotmail is very unreliable (about 50-75% accurate), meaning its very difficult to manage emails.
The 200megs storage limit on hotmail can hold about 4000 emails, and since its difficult to handle even 50, I'd hate to leave my inbox unattended for a week.
Overall, the reason gmail is succeeding isn't just the business plan, but the features make it more usable then hotmail or yahoo. In my opinion though, yahoo is still doing a much better job then hotmail, with its features.
Having a hotmail account has no real benefits (it has the smaller space, you can get a passport without a hotmail account, they tend to get very spammy, and theres no "hotmail groups" which needs a hotmail account to sign up) and because of all the email addresses, its very hard to end up with a remotely decent email on it. Gmail has started to suffer the same problem, but I severely doubt it will ever suffer it as bad as hotmail or yahoo (yahoo for instance has different domains such as auzy@yahoo.com will accept the same emails as auzy@yahoo.co.uk, but someone might not realise it and sign up for both with different ID's, halving the total domains).
Its not just about advertising, its about the usage. Everyone has a hotmail account they leave around for junk.. Which means that they are just gathering emails at the moment costing Microsoft in Bandwidth costs.
I love how everything is a "business model"... (Score:2, Interesting)
A business model is rather from where you get revenues, or how you are organised. I get my money from consulting, and the software I'm building is free. Microsoft charges for their software. THAT is different business models.
1 GB storage quota (Score:2)
Last I checked hard drives are less than $1/GB. I hardly think storage quotas are their biggest expense. The total compensation for the CEO is probably bigger than their entire cost of the gmail infrastructure.
Re:1 GB storage quota (Score:2)
Re:1 GB storage quota (Score:2)
Re:1 GB storage quota (Score:3, Informative)
Using gmail.. Don't like it (Score:5, Interesting)
It still won't open messages in a new window. Is it so unnatural to want to view the message index in one window and open the messages in new windows while retaining my view of the index? I mean, some of us can chew gum and walk at the same time.
On Yahoo, I can do this simply by middle clicking links. Not on gmail. Javascript and frames hell prevent it. As if that makes it "okay".
I still can't find an option to get a traditional chronological view of my inbox. Gmail only seems to provide their threaded view. Many times, that view is not optimal.
No folders. They do not support folders. Sure, they support filters. But I can't use a filter to put mail from a mailing list into a folder. This is good how? What alternative to folders are they providing?
No option to show full headers by default.
5% of the time, gmail says it is unavail when I try and login. A retry gets me in.
It is great as an inbox for registering accounts, etc. But aside for the benefit of the 1GB causing everyone else to raise their quotas, it ain't that great.
Re:Using gmail.. Don't like it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Using gmail.. Don't like it (Score:2, Informative)
It's not a hack at all; use one label per e-mail and you get folders. In every single respect. The only difference between labels and folders is that labels allow you to have the same e-mail in more than one 'folder'. If you don't use that functions the label act exactly as folders. I can't believe people are complaining labels
Re:Using gmail.. Don't like it (Score:2)
Yes, no folders. Instead they have categories, and yes, you can make a filter that places mail from a mailing list into a category, and you can choose whether that filter also removes the email from the inbox. I have a few filters that do this.
I have no argument with the rest of your post, although man
Re:Using gmail.. Don't like it (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't you answer your own question? To get what is effectively a "Folder", use a filter to label the message..
Filter: If subject contains *cocoa-dev*, apply label CocoaML, and skip the Inbox.
It then is not shown in your inbox, but shows up as a new message in th
Important difference with advertising systems (Score:2)
While it's not out of the question that Microsoft could develop their own systems to sell targetted ads based on keywords on their email services they wouldn't have
Yahoo wins (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, GMail is really nice. Part of the UI though I'm still up in the air as to whether it's more difficult for me to use because I'm not used to it or because it's just plain not better. For instance, I sent an email to approximately 40 people from my Gmail account and received a single response from just about all of them. Well all of those responses are lumped into a single unit called a conversation that I find very difficult to navigate/cleanup/etc. I know that's the point - that I'm never supposed to delete anything, but I think actually hitting that "ideal" might be counterproductive. So, I stick with Yahoo - especially since they added the ability to login using SSL. Can you believe for years you had to login with your password in plaintext!! And even now the "Standard" login is plaintext - you have to click on "Secure" mode to make sure nobody gets your login and password.
Re:Yahoo wins (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo wins (Score:2)
Market saturation (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way: Gmail is still beta (Score:3, Informative)
plug for fastmail.fm (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no affiliation other than being a happy customer.
The entire 1 gigabyte size issue.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The same goes for attachments. Somehow index them and store them seperately.
For example, I was sent an Ashley Simpson 3mb attachment when that first came out, and I noticed 4 others on that message that had gmail accounts. How many other gmail users got that same attachment?
Re:The entire 1 gigabyte size issue.... (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, indexing email attachments is very simple, just do it like a P2P network would: compute a hash on the attachment, store it along with the attachment's size and check for matches.
Someone might complain about the possibility of collisions under this scheme. Now if a secure hash function were used (not MD5 as it has been broken) then the system would be, for all practical purposes, shielded from collisions:
Re:The entire 1 gigabyte size issue.... (Score:2)
It wouldn't work so easily for e-mails. If nothing else, the date and TO: address is going to be different, so no two messages will be identical... Well, a few will, but not many.
They could get this to work, using some variation on CVS, but of course, then the job is to say, what other set of messages is this one
Re:The entire 1 gigabyte size issue.... (Score:2)
Right. I would think the headers would be stored literally and the body and attachments would just be a reference to the actual data stored in a common cesspool.
Re:The entire 1 gigabyte size issue.... (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, this is almost precisely how they do it. They take each incoming message, hash it, and store that hash and original message on their shards in their data management system, with a very fast lookup. Every time a new message is received or delivered, and matches an existing hash, the pointer to the original message is put into the user's mailbox. If a user deletes the message, the pointer to that message is removed from that user's mailbox.
This means if 30 people subscribe to the Linux Kernel Mailing List (notorious for being incredibly high-traffic), and 1,000 messages are received in a day.. only 1,000 messages are stored, not 30,000. This not-only saves space, but it saves mailbox lookup time and increases speed of the system overall.
Now, apply this to the spam problem. Spam email to one person (such as shopping advertisements for Sears) may not be spam to another person ("Hey, I need a new lawnmower at Sears!"). So those who mark it as spam, get the spam heuristic scoring weighted higher and applied to their incoming message hashes, and those who do not mark those same messages as spam, get a lower weighting.
The system is actually pretty brilliant.
Now, in response to the other person who claims that their 3MiB email sent to their sister and friends created copies of the message in their "Sent" folder, that makes perfect sense, because the message is different if you send it on different days or with different contents ("Hey Sally, check out these pictures!" "Here's some pictures for you, Bob."). They should be treated differently in the sending user's mailbox. But to the recipient, the attachment itself, is not getting duplicated.
The precise reason Google can offer 1GiB mailboxes for every user, is because that 1GiB is "over-provisioned" across thousands of other users, much like how an ISP oversells their own bandwidth, knowing that all their customers won't saturate the entire pipe 24x7.
Gmail very un-Googlish (Score:5, Insightful)
The POP feature also makes no sense to me; it basically begs you to download messages from their servers when their stated goal is to collect lots of mail. If they offered IMAP access instead, people could keep their messages on the server. They could even use IMAP for placing subtle adds (e.g., message "1" is always some kind of simple ad, but unlike spam or hotmail, there would always only be one advertising message).
An area where Gmail could really do something better is passwords: they really should offer one-time passwords for travelers. Right now, when traveling, there is a high chance with web-based mail that your password gets compromised.
In any case, for fairly little money, you can get large mailboxes with IMAP interfaces from other companies, and you get a lot more control over them than with Gmail. Currently, Gmail's "free" isn't good enough for me to save the money I get with a commercial provider.
Re:Gmail very un-Googlish (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to climb on a horse over the implementation of the interface, remember that javascript works on more than IE alone. In this way most modern browsers are supported, admittedly not some of the simpler handhelds but hey, you can't please everyone. Most 'simpler' handhelds do Pop3 nowadays so they are/will be covered.
Furthermore, if they would like to get on the Geeks good side they should make a XUL version of their interface. That would create the killer-app for XUL in one go.
Re:Gmail very un-Googlish (Score:2)
I agree with that 100%. I really don't have anything to add, I think you put it quite well.
Hello? Privacy anyone? (Score:2)
Likewise, the freebie web e-mail services are fine for goofing off, but I would never use such services for core communications. There is virtually no guarantee of privacy ever with any of those services. Their terms of service and privacy
It doesn't matter (Score:3, Interesting)
6 years. But then Goggle comes and in a matter of days my account is upgraded to 100 Mb. They couldn't really afford to do that for the last 6 years, yet as soon as a competitor shows up they start offering upgrades.
Well, too bad, I'm going to Gmail and their targeted ads and I feel no remorse leaving behind Yahoo and their sucktastic advertising.
Great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:GMAIL is beta (Score:2)
You want an invitation? (Score:2)
Re:GMAIL is beta (Score:2)
Seriously, though - if you want a Gmail invite, they're everywhere - probably Google's way of stopping people from selling them. Just ask around, email me if you're desperate (oberon@gmail.com) and try it out for yourself.
nope (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, email will change. It might not even be recognizable as email anymore. But there is still a need on the internet for some type of "mail" system, where both parties don't have to be online. Furthermore, there is still a need to contact people you might not know.
For instance, I had to recently contact a prof. at a university. He had no idea who I was, as we had never met or exchanged mail. Sad day for me if the new system only accepts mail from known people.
Think a little.
Re:Would like to go to gmails party.... (Score:2)
Re:Would like to go to gmails party.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your point of view is logical and indeed expectable, but Google successfully exploits one of the most ignored and powerful forms of publicity: the word of mouth. Word of mouth is effective because it is a friend of yours who is advertising the said product, and he's not being paid for it, you believe him because you know that he's telling the truth about his experience, and if the said friend
Re:Would like to go to gmails party.... (Score:4, Informative)
Also, look around Slashdot, and copy the URLs from those GMail Invite Trolls (the ones that LINK to Last Measure, but have five invite URLs in their link text). These might be OK, but keep in mind, the troll will have your new e-mail address.
Re:Would like to go to gmails party.... (Score:2)
Or better yet, use the GMail-o-Matic [isnoop.net] automatic GMail invite and provisioning system. I am not affiliated with it, but I've had great luck with it.
For all of you waiting for invites... (Score:5, Informative)
I know it works, as I just sent 3 invites to their email address, and within 10 minutes someone had already activated the first one. This is a really cool service, and since it's automated, it's easy.
Re:Pardon me (Score:2)
Re:Pardon me (Score:2, Informative)
Plus, I love the fact that the titlebar of the browser window gives an unread message count, and that the Gmail inbox periodically refreshes itself. That way, at work I can leave a browser window open and periodically check the taskbar to see if