Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#251

Post by lern_too_spel »

davepeck wrote: post #182
lern_too_spel wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could turn that around and ask why Apple didn't bother to fix something that was causing pain for some of their users and continued not to fix it after it was causing pain for most of their users. Google made a bad engineering decision, but I would place most of the blame on Apple. It's the same for IE and web applications that didn't work in that browser. Luckily, people (for the most part) stopped using IE. We…

It doesn’t feel equivalent to me; I tend to think that there’s a meaningful distinction between a bug known before shipping and a bug discovered after. That said, it’s fair to ask why Apple hasn’t placed priority on the scrolling bug, post-AMP. What the real dynamics are I can only guess; I’d love to hear from lurking AMP or WebKit engineers.

> I’d love to hear from lurking AMP or WebKit engineers.

A WebKit engineer explained the scrolling bug and how they fixed it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386292

> That said, it’s fair to ask why Apple hasn’t placed priority on the scrolling bug, post-AMP

Because Apple is incapable of fixing a browser bug without an OS update. You should be asking why Apple won't let you use a non-buggy browser on your phone to begin with.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#252

Post by vanderZwan »

Daycrawler wrote: post #237
adamsvystun wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. I disagree. Gmail brought Google millions of customers. It's all about the ecosystem that they are building, which helps them retain customers. If you use Gmail, than there is higher chance that you will use Google Drive than competition. Another example of this is Google Keep. There is no reason for them to have free notes app, other than making y…

Gaining customers doesn't mean monetizing, and it's particularly relevant to point out that a channel is under monetized specifically when this channel has a lot of users.

I highly doubt that mandatory monetisation of every channel is a sound economic strategy.

EDIT: While not intentional, that was a bit flippant without extra arguments, my apologies. Also, this is more of a general "abstract" comment; Google operates in a real-world, concrete business context that it has to adapt to, and I am not burdened with knowing the details of that.

Google (the search engine), Gmail, and really almost everything in Google's ecosystem are essentially freemium apps since before the words "freemium" and "app" were coined, let alone combined.

You can use Google for free, but if you're trying to sell something you can use it's advertising.

You can use Gmail, and other the services the implicit Google account it gives, for free, but for the niche use cases there are things like Gmail business, or extra disk space on Google Drive once you run out of space to upload those big photos and videos from your phone, and so on.

What Google has expertly done is position itself as a public utility of the internet, despite being a private company. Whatever they are planning to do, I think that if they mess with that too much they risk a lot.

That is what I believe adamsvystun's point was: compared to most other monetisation options, ensuring that they keep this "public utility" position in the public eye is the most lucrative form of long-term monetisation for Google.

EDIT2: It gets worse the more I think about this: messing with email is especially risky, because email itself is tied very strongly to one's internet identity. It is the passport of the web. Think of all the "sign up/log in with" options: email is always the fallback option. So not messing that up is incredibly important to Google.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#253

Post by pymai »

gukov wrote: post #169

One thing I have a hard time understanding: Microsoft got in trouble for including IE with Windows. Why is Google given a free pass to basically shape internet however they like?

there weren't any alternatives back then. there are plenty alternatives to gmail luckily enough

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#254

Post by wklauss »

Kesty wrote: post #245
wklauss wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll get down voted for saying this No, you'll get down voted for the way you are saying it. There's a difference, and it's an important one. Cheers

It's not wrong that AMP is a terrible thing in a pretty package. While the idea of having standards for mobile and slow connection might be a noble one, forcing everyone into it by using mobile search results as ransom is an evil practice. Especially since it's a google run, if it was set up as a non profit foundation with people on the board from different major players as a collaborative project then, yes It might…

And I don't disagree with that. I think the view that drives AMP is misguided and self-serving for Google.

I do, however, like to come to HN because it tends to be a very civil space in which to share opinions, not a vehicle for attention seekers to spout whatever false equivalences their brain just come up with.

As far as I'm concerned everyone here is entitled to their opinion and I have never seen anyone's voice silenced in this forum. But when you start a message with "I know I'm going to get down voted but..." you are hedging on the value of your own opinion. You know it's unpopular but at the same time you are so concerned with the public validation of it that need to present yourself as a victim and the rest of us as some kind of oppressors.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#255

Post by xuki »

mrtksn wrote: post #249
mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

> Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider?

Yes, forward them to your new email, preferably using your own domain name. Start giving out your new email to people, reply to your gmail email from your new email. It takes time but after a few years you can ditch the gmail completely.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#256

Post by scrollaway »

mrtksn wrote: post #249
mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

> Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider?

Yes and no. GMail does support IMAP access (Go here to enable it: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#settings/fwdandpop). IMAP is a standard that allows you to access an inbox remotely.

OTOH, as long as you are using @gmail.com in your address, you are at their mercy. Go to https://www.gandi.net and purchase a domain name, it'll cost you FastMail is a paid alternative to gmail which people consistently recommend here. I am happy with GSuite personally as I really like the GMail interface, but you can look here if you want an alternative: https://www.fastmail.com/ (~$5/month plan for custom domain)

GSuite is the paid version of Google's services (~$5/month); as you said, it is perfectly fine for Google to charge for services. And as it happens, you can use your own domain on GSuite, so you could use your new email there. https://gsuite.google.com/together/

PS: If anyone is having trouble and needs help setting this up, shoot me an email (profile).

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#257

Post by andyjohnson0 »

mrtksn wrote: post #249
mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

Late last year I moved from gmail to fastmail + custom domain. Fastmail's migration tools made moving my messages extremely easy. Changing my email address on the various sites I use was a bit tedious, but I never once found a site that didn't allow it to be changed.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#258

Post by mrtksn »

xuki wrote: post #255
mrtksn wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

> Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? Yes, forward them to your new email, preferably using your own domain name. Start giving out your new email to people, reply to your gmail email from your new email. It takes time but after a few years you can ditch the gmail completely.

That is not entirely true though, is it? The forwarded e-mails won't become non-Gmail over time and I will still be dependant on Google to forward the e-mails to me.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#259

Post by dozzie »

mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

> If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing.

The problem is that Gmail is the most prominent e-mail provider and at the same time they make it difficult for other e-mail providers to operate, especially small ones. Gmail's spam detection is totally opaque and you can't do much if your mail lands in junk folder. For this single reason Google is no longer in a position when you can cut them some slack for anything related to Gmail.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#260

Post by chrisper »

krylon wrote: post #224
jacquesm wrote: post #105

Poor frogs. The water temp just got upped a couple of degrees. Too late to jump out or not just yet? Some relief for frogs that make it out of the pot: https://mailinabox.email/ https://redmail.com/ https://protonmail.com/ https://www.fastmail.com/

https://posteo.de/en

Does not allow custom domains.
Post reply on HN