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

321–330 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#321

Post by rootlocus »

wklauss wrote: post #228
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…

> 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

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

Voting for the shape instead of the content is superficial.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#322

Post by slgeorge »

kuschku wrote: post #239
alkjhadgukdsg wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the screensaver crashes, it gets restarted, or, if that fails, you get in a lovely TTY font "open a tty, login as your user, and type loginctl session-unlock". This is really offtopic, but you seem to confuse KDE with systemd. There is a bit of KDE that tells you to use loginctl to tell KDE's display manager to unlock the session if KDE's screensaver doesn't work properly.

Sure, KDE implements that bit, but the important part is that logind makes it possible to implement that bit in the first place. Before logind, the alternative was custom handling and detection of screensavers in your session, or simply it crashing back to the session.

I find both your comments confusing.

In your first comment you said that screensavers were just normal windows and would crash back to an unlocked screen - that never happened. Here you're conflating KDE (started ~1997) needing logind (started in what 2010?) which it didn't. Even your comment about a 'session' makes no sense since at the X runlevel X itself is the 'session'.

In my opinion a lot of the problem has been a lack of clarity of what the actual user benefit will be, and the crazy borg-like scope expanion. I'm going to avoid commenting on the implementation of logind and brethren.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#323

Post by kuschku »

saurik wrote: post #290
dwaite wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The three main issues are that scrolling behavior was busted, clicking on the top bar doesn't scroll to the top like it does in all other scroll views in the system, and the URL bar doesn't show the 'real site' so links shared via the built-in mechanism are links to google, not to the actual site content. All three of these are Google not taking into account mobile browser design. None of these can really be classifi…

Google should have just not used a scrolling iframe. MobileSafari has this beautiful quirk that iframes greater than 8 pixels tall automatically expand to the size of their content, solving all of the awkward coordination problems of sizing the iframe. It would have been just so damned simple for Google to fix this in MobileSafari :/.

That's certainly an interesting quirk, I've never heard of it, nor seen it in another browser.

Definitely useful, though, why isn't that a feature in HTML5?

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#324

Post by kuschku »

slgeorge wrote: post #322
kuschku wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, KDE implements that bit, but the important part is that logind makes it possible to implement that bit in the first place. Before logind, the alternative was custom handling and detection of screensavers in your session, or simply it crashing back to the session.

I find both your comments confusing. In your first comment you said that screensavers were just normal windows and would crash back to an unlocked screen - that never happened. Here you're conflating KDE (started ~1997) needing logind (started in what 2010?) which it didn't. Even your comment about a 'session' makes no sense since at the X runlevel X itself is the 'session'. In my opinion a lot of the problem has bee…

I'm not conflating anything — lockscreens on X11 were always just normal windows. If they crash, they unlock.

I suggest you read JWZ's On Toolkits page: (archive link due to referer shenanigans): http://archive.is/BjMfp

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#325

Post by simias »

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…

I'm not sure I understand your point. You're projecting a lot, there's more to the world of computers than Google and Apple.

At any rate you choose to buy into Apple ecosystem. A big email provider changing how email works is not the same thing. For the record I host my own email server and use mutt as my main email client. The only Apple device I own is an old pre-iphone iPod.

If Google changes the expectations of email users everywhere then it won't be long until you end up with a broken experience if you don't support AMP email out of the box. Exactly what happened with HTML email: it's not rare these days to receive a multipart/alternative email where the plain text version is simply "see HTML". If AMP mail becomes mainstream it'll be like this but worse. Soon you'll have an HTML page that will tell you to "see AMP content".

I don't know if it's completely on purpose but that's by the book "embrace, extend and extinguish" by Google there.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#326

Post by Spooky23 »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #203
Spooky23 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my coworkers to this day was so upset by the Google Reader fiasco that he has not used any google service in any form since then.

I was really upset by it too. I used to start my day with Google Reader the same way my dad used to start his day reading the newspaper. This was a crucial part of my morning ritual, and I trusted and relied on Google to maintain it for me. The sudden announcement that it would be taken away felt like a betrayal. It shattered my image of Google and made me completely rethink my dependence on them and seek out alterna…

I agree.

It was probably the single best social thing I’ve ever used. It was unique as it was actually social. Both my teams at work and family/friends used it as a way to comment on news and share stuff of interest. It was also a product of an earlier era where there was excitement over anything Google released.

Google+ tried to capture many of the good parts of reader... but it was too forced.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#327

Post by andrepd »

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…

What a tremendously unconstructive post.

>I'll get down voted for saying this

Well don't mind if I do. (read the guidelines friend, this kind of crap is specifically frowned upon).

> Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing.

This is a pet peeve of mine. What does this mean? That you can't force to charge their ways? Yeah, maybe you can't. Doesn't mean you're not allowed to make criticism? If course not. The argument "they're a private company therefore they do what they please" is a facile but invalid way to shut down criticism.

>You can't complain about Google because Apple does other unrelated bad stuff.

Well and you can't complain about Apple because Monsanto does even worse stuff and I don't see you mentioning then. Classic whataboutism.

In other words, if you really wanted to do constructive criticism you would have (1) presented your arguments clearly instead of playing the victim in your very first sentence, and (2) you would have limited yourself to the facts of the matter and not to external stuff (which you only kinda did in your 4th point).

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#328

Post by justaguyhere »

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…

"you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email"

Yes, email is such an important tool that it would make sense for all of us to pay for it. That said, the big internet companies trained millions of users to expect everything for free on the internet (intentionally or not). Many people seriously think "if it is on the internet, it should be free - I am paying for my internet connection, aren't I?". If you don't believe me, try talking to a non-HN, non-tech-savvy person about it.

The fault is on these companies as much as the users. It would take a big change in mindset to make non-advertising models work in consumer world

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#329

Post by jpp123 »

feniv wrote: post #144

Besides the ideological issues, is the HTML tag for AMP emails seriously going to be (html lightning-emoji 4email)? I wish they implemented this as a separate MIME type so emails could specify multi-part messages with text/plain, text/html and a text/amp (just for gmail).

it is a separate mime type

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#330

Post by Spooky23 »

continuational wrote: post #229
tyingq wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until they sell you off to Frontier. Frontier decided all the movies I bought from Verizon weren't mine anymore. No compensation, no apologies.

The whole idea of “selling” something that the customer don’t actually receive, and has no rights to, is insane. It’s tantamount to false advertising, and I think it should be made illegal.

As much as we all hate cable, telephone companies are more evil.

Verizon in particular is amazing in their priorities from an operational perspective are getting rid traditional phone business at all costs and spiting the CWA.

Post reply on HN