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

371–380 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#371

Post by kyrra »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #183
kyrra wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know the scrolling issues we're bugs in webkit. Google (I believe) started to employ a webkit dev to fix the problems.

No, not really. Most UX issues with AMP on Safari rather stem from the approach Google has taken with the html. For instance, it’s not a WebKit bug that tapping the top of the screen on an AMP page does not scroll to top - something that works on virtually all other webpages.

The tapping top of screen hasn't been fixed, as it likely is hard to do.

As for other work on scrolling:

Person contracted to fix some webkit issues: http://frederic-wang.fr/amp-and-igalia-working-together-to-i...

HN discussion made some news about scrolling changes made due to AMP's bug reports: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/05/22/scrolling-changes-comin...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#372

Post by PuffinBlue »

waldfee wrote: post #194
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/

also https://runbox.com

Seconded. Glad to see this here. They have their foibles (current webmail interface is very old school, filters are a little limited etc) but I'm a paying customer for several years now (asking side zoho's mail offering) and am happy.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#373

Post by toomuchtodo »

brongondwana wrote: post #311
toomuchtodo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would contribute to a campaign to help FastMail support multiple labels on messages. It’s the only thing keeping me tied to Gmail.

It really is coming in JMAP! Come along to IETF in London to have a play, or I'll be pushing out links to updated JMAP Proxy in the next couple of weeks and you can play with it there :)

Fantastic news! Thank you for all of your org's efforts in this regard. The open web needs every advocate it can get.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#374

Post by username223 »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #335
beagle3 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure gmail meets the legal definition of a monopoly, but 3 months ago, gmail started to randomly mark some of my emails “spam”, and it has caused me non trivial financial damage, as it turns out about 90% of the people I correspond with are using google’s mail servers, whether @gmail.com or through g-suite. Feels as monopolish as any other monopoly i’ve seen in technology.

People can still run their own email server if they want, and it will work just fine, and receive and deliver mail to other mail servers. A monopoly situation would have some kind of limits enforced, correct? I have dealt with spam issues with Gmail and solved them all. I send HTML formatted email to many Gmail accounts. I suspect you have not setup SPF, DKIM or are blacklisted on spam lists. Or if you've done all th…

> People can still run their own email server if they want, and it will work just fine,...

> I suspect you have not setup SPF, DKIM or are blacklisted on spam lists. Or if you've done all this, possibly the formats for your emails is suspect.

In what sense is this "work[ing] just fine?" "Sorry, we threw away your mail for some random reason, and we won't tell you about it" seems like poor service.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#376

Post by TeMPOraL »

Someone wrote: post #40

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…

> Also, I guess all clicks in those experiences will go through Google’s servers.

That's the main thing I mind.

Really, the UI of webmail clients suck. The point of computing is automatization; there's shit ton of things that could be better integrated with each other in search, e-mail, calendaring, etc. But for that to be good, you'd have to own that integration. When a third party owns it, you become slave to that third party.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#377

Post by daveFNbuck »

Spooky23 wrote: post #326
daveFNbuck wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The social aspect was the one part of Reader I never got. I don't think anyone I know uses RSS feeds outside of podcast subscriptions. I just liked that it was the only RSS reader I had ever found that just worked, and it synced my state as a bonus.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#378

Post by zeveb »

> The moat is the one between communications and applications. Communications say things, and applications interact with things. There are crossover areas, but something like email is designed and overwhelmingly used to say things, while websites and apps are overwhelmingly designed and used to interact with things.

I agree with the distinction, but I believe that websites & email belong on the same side of the moat. Websites are meant to say things and applications are meant to interact with things.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#379

Post by jkahrs595 »

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…

> At any rate you choose to buy into Apple ecosystem.

Yes and if I don't, too bad. I just can't iMessage the rest of my family who did.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#380

Post by matz1 »

kuschku wrote: post #165
xivzgrev wrote: post #76

I, for one, welcome our new AMP overlords. As a marketer emails are really limited. This opens up possibility of higher engagement and less friction for what you want Gmail customers to do. I work for a loan company - get a rate quote IN YOUR EMAIL! Customer saves time and I just cut 2 steps out of our funnel. The required coding and browser compatibility scare me a bit though. Nothing to piss off consumers than an e…

Cool, and as a user, I want every marketeer to be hanged and quartered But really, marketing as a whole is broken. Do you actually like watching advertising, and getting hundreds of spam and impossible-to-unsubscribe marketing emails every day? If not, why do you think your users will? There's nothing good in marketing. It doesn't help the ability of users to buy products (if the goal is that the user buys the best p…

A marketer doesn't have to actually like advertising itself, its just a tools.

I think they clearly know that users hate advertising but this is not their concern, more important is if the advertising increase the sales/profit.

You have to see it from their point of view.

I hate advertisement too but if I'm a marketer I would gladly spam users all day long if it works.

Post reply on HN