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

351–360 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#351

Post by ams6110 »

dm319 wrote: post #338
cdubzzz wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: do you think you really like it or are you really used to it? When Google made the move to Inbox, I switched because I wanted to be using their newest interface. Over time I came to absolutely hate it and that drove me away from Gmail. My wife still uses it so I occasionally find myself in the Inbox app on our tablet. Just a few days ago, actually, I read something in her inbox and for the life of me…

I find it surprising that my search seems more comprehensive and faster in mutt than by the king-of-search's very own.

Yeah, I use notmuch in emacs for my mail, and searching is way better than in gmail.

Gmail's interface is very limiting, actually. It's pretty good for a web app, and probably better than Outlook/Exchange, but when the competition is so poor it's easy to seem good.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#352

Post by corobo »

sam_goody wrote: post #284
RobertRoberts wrote: post #248

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…

What do they do from an SMTP point of view that's different to the usual/RFCs?

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#353

Post by hjek »

simias wrote: post #325
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 e…

I agree completely with your observation about Google EEE here.

Just wanted to say that you can read HTML emails in Mutt by having a browser, like Links2 or Lynx, do the formatting.

https://www.marksanborn.net/howto/reading-html-email-with-mu...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#354

Post by makomk »

kuschku wrote: post #324
slgeorge wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes you are. The trick that KDE uses is that the screen locking is done by the KDE session manager, and because that is the main process in the X session if it crashes the session terminates so it's not possible to bypass the screen locker that way. None of that requires systemd; it makes use of something that's been true under X11 pretty much forever. The only thing that changed with logind is that instead of trying to restart the password prompt if it crashes, KDE now pops up a message asking you to drop to a console and use logind to disable the screen locker. (Annoyingly, it does this even on systems that don't use logind, in which case the instructions don't actually work.)

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#355

Post by choward »

chx wrote: post #53
colordrops wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a mistake in thinking you are the customer. You are the product.

When using gsuite, I am the customer.

That's how the world used to be. Now you're either a customer or not. You will always be the product.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#356

Post by achileas »

simias wrote: post #325
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 e…

Another example of this was IE's non-standard page rendering standards years ago.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#357

Post by nebulous1 »

simias wrote: post #325
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 e…

I'm not seeing where you're demonstrating that Apple only affects people who "choose to buy into the Apple ecosystem" but gmail affects everybody.

I mean, there's truth to the idea that Google have more sway when it comes to trends on the internet, but when you say that a "a big email provider changing how email works", Apple could easily be the big email provider in that sentence

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#358

Post by SquareWheel »

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

I challenge you to make a positive comment towards AMP on Hacker News without getting downvoted.

Sometimes it really is the content.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#359

Post by PuffinBlue »

mrtksn wrote: post #282
scrollaway wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have no issue with Google's services other than wanting the assurance that you can get support and are treated like a paying customer, I recommend GSuite. Although I'll (hypocritically, since I don't use it) still recommend Fastmail anyway since I think GMail needs way more competition. I'll let actual fastmail users convince you there :)

I think at some point I will give Fastmail a try, thanks :)

And Gmail needs more competition than just FastMail - so make sure to look at RunBox and Zoho. I pay for both and both are excellent services, having switched from FastMail after their huge pricing shift a couple years ago.

Zoho's webmail is currently much better than RunBox but the latter is undergoing a beta test of a new modern interface.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#360

Post by staticelf »

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…

1. I do pay for email, just recently renewed my 2 year plan on fastmail. But I still do have a gmail account since I used to be heavy Google user until they started to be bad. I am still trying to move away from Google services all along, but it quite hard. The only thing I can't move away from is Youtube because there is no alternatives that has the content.

2. I use an iPhone, but it's only because I believe that Apple respects my privacy more than Google does with Android. I don't really like using an Apple device, because some of the reasons you mentioned. But I value my privacy over those things.

3. I consistenly opposes both and I really hope that I am not in the minority.

4. Yes. Thank you.

Post reply on HN