311–320 of 483 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For sure, it'll finally provide me the impetus to move to a service like Fastmail/ProtonMail/etc.
I would contribute to a campaign to help FastMail support multiple labels on messages. It’s the only thing keeping me tied to Gmail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying something unpopular in most cases shouldn't get you downvoted, but often "I know I'm going to get down voted but..." also is a lead in to complaints of hypocrisy. It reminds me of a friend that used to start off particularly rude statements by saying "I don't want to be rude but..."
> It reminds me of a friend that used to start off particularly rude statements by saying "I don't want to be rude but..." I don't see the contradiction here. I interpret these kind of phrases as: "I don't like to be rude, and normally I'm not, but in this case I need to make an exception." Frankly, not everybody actually meant to say that, but this interpretation still helps to deal with those situations in a civil,…
Everybody had a computer that could run any program, but used only their web browser, so they made the web browser pretend to be any program, but then everybody had a web browser that could run any program, but used only webmail, so they made webmail pretend to be any program? Where does that end? Or are these ”engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” more limited than the current web applications? I…
'Click here to download Thunderbird' is what my mind inserts after reading that.
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…
I'm sure Google could monetise Gmail more than they have, but I've always thought the real business success of Gmail was sharing its login with google.com and moving Google to a position where many searches are done with a personal identity that they can track anywhere. It seems before Gmail there wouldn't be much reason to actually log in to Google, and having users logged in makes their product better and I'm guess…
FWIW, I agree entirely with your point, but I think Youtube is the secret sauce that makes it work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice try but there is no logic between your points 1 and 2 to come to the third. Apple sells hardware and is not a monopoly, so if their customers are happy with their choice then good for them. On the other hand Google is a monopoly, so a lot of people are not ok with them abusing their position to hijack the web (that they already “own”) and email. Edit: typo
Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...
Feels as monopolish as any other monopoly i’ve seen in technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...
There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo... they're all viable products that you can use to accomplish 90ish% of what Google could find, and maybe even more now that Google strips historical data (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840 , from a month ago). Since you're mentioning SEO, I just checked and 15.8% of searches for my website came from non-Go…
Just so everyone's clear, monopoly doesn't mean (nearly) 100% market share; it means a large enough market share to be able to manipulate the market.
So, to elaborate on your first point, I think you're saying that the ease of switching search engines means that a market share necessary to manipulate the search market would be near 100%, much higher than Google has. Am I reading you correctly?
While I don't see the security issue at a machine level being an issue since this will be done through canvas. I do see an issue with privacy. Its still JavaScript powering that fancy display. Which means JavaScript can write and read cookies and session values. JS can possibly do other bad things on your machine.
I wish my email would just stay email. Let the social networks do the fancy stuff. That's what they're for. Google could always go back a retool Google Plus. Let publishers do AMP mini-sites there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a fairly happy fastmail user, and have been intrigued by ProtonMail. Has anyone made a switch between them or run both for an extended period of time? I do like he idea of encrypted-at-rest, and the desktop bridge seems like a decent solution for syncing locally, but not having search on mobile seems like it would be a major drawback for my use cases. An app I have always wished for is something that would store…
ProtonMail is quite nice. Just try it out. I would suggest you always keep it open in a tab and save your password in a password manager, otherwise you may "forget" to log to that email and may not use it often. Also make sure you set-up getting your emails into ProtonMail from day one.
could you explain this a bit more? ive been routing my gmail to protonmail since i started using it but im slowly changing accounts from using gmail to protonmail as i go
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...
Their email _is_ dominant enough to be considered a monopoly. Simply because if they start pushing some format, everyone must go along with them. Your private server can afford to not be inter operable with Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL, but not Google. And you can rest assured that email you send, anywhere, will eventually be forwarded to someone on a Google server. If not directly, than via Google Apps. But in literal…
Seems we are not living on the same planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...
There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo... they're all viable products that you can use to accomplish 90ish% of what Google could find, and maybe even more now that Google strips historical data (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840 , from a month ago). Since you're mentioning SEO, I just checked and 15.8% of searches for my website came from non-Go…
Google isn't a monopoly for users, it's a monopoly for developers. You can't get users without being on Google.
Only if I can replace one company with another, at roughly equal results, can the market be considered competitive.
I can't delist my site on Google and replace those users with Bing users.
If each search engine had only 5% or 10% of the market, though, I could. And I might. That's what a competitive market looks like.
Google is, from that perspective, a monopoly.