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

391–400 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#391

Post by taeric »

josteink wrote: post #367
justaguyhere wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Indeed. If I try to offer non-gmail email options to people, even here on HN, people will go “Oh. But they cost money”, as if that’s something deeply unnatural. Me, I’m happy to pay, because it means that I know I’m a customer, not a product.

For me, I confess paying for it has the risk of it being held hostage if I miss payments. Worse, my data can turn into leverage for increases price.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#392

Post by josteink »

taeric wrote: post #391
josteink wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. If I try to offer non-gmail email options to people, even here on HN, people will go “Oh. But they cost money”, as if that’s something deeply unnatural. Me, I’m happy to pay, because it means that I know I’m a customer, not a product.

For me, I confess paying for it has the risk of it being held hostage if I miss payments. Worse, my data can turn into leverage for increases price.

Which is why you should always choose a service which offers full access via standards-based protocols so that you always have the option of owning your own data.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#393

Post by ComputerGuru »

kyrra wrote: post #371
ComputerGuru wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

AMP scrolling is still broken. I don’t see why it needs to touch the scroll behavior at all. Plain html is both fast and scrolls naturally. It doesn’t break mobile safari. I don’t get why Google needed to render AMP on such a way that they need to try hard to emulate native scroll behavior (still getting it wrong, previously it was too fast and now it’s a smidge too slow) instead of just using the native behavior.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#394

Post by redspectre »

Why does every piece of software have to be an """experience""" now? I don't want experiences. I want simple, usable tools that stay out of my way.

Why does it feel like every standard piece of software has been completely overtaken by marketers and designers? Do software developers actually get input on software written today by major companies? Or is it all driven by marketing and business analysts?

Software is a tool. It's like a hammer. I don't want my hammering to be an "experience". I am just trying to pound a nail. Same with my email client. I don't want an email "experience", I want a simple and productive tool that stays out of my way. Ideally, it should be easily extensible and feature keyboard shortcuts, a keyboard based workflow, and support for macros and API interaction.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#395

Post by IncRnd »

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…

> Your private server can afford to not be inter operable with Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL, but not Google.

Citation needed. This is the opposite of much of the world of work, where emails often both originate and terminate in Exchange Servers, not touching gmail servers.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#396

Post by jitbit »

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…

> Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade

Not because they're all nice and charitable.

But because Google sometimes sucks at monetizing things.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#397

Post by icebraining »

ams6110 wrote: post #346
KMag wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. 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 h…

Do you have an economic or legal reference for that definition of "monopoly"? Since search engines are all free to use, many of the criteria of a monopoly seem hard to apply, but the classic defintions I'm familiar with include things such as "no reasonable substitute" which is not the case for Google Search.

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#398

Post by mattlondon »

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

Just as a reminder for everyone (and I appreciate that the parent comment does not directly claim that this is the case), Google claims not scan or read your emails in Gmail to show you ads, nor to sell your information to advertisers.

Source: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/6603?hl=en

Just thought I'd point that out before the FUD/tin-foil kicks in too much :)

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#399

Post by ibdf »

I don't want a webpage in my e-mail. HTML e-mails are already abused so much, with fake links, and terrible marketing. And it doesn't help to quit gmail, I am sure this will spread like fire to all other clients.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#400

Post by mstade »

StavrosK wrote: post #306
mstade wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same, until I actually made the switch. Mileage varies of course, but in my case it turns out I don't miss any features at all. Ever since email clients started to look more like todo apps I've hunted for the perfect client, but turns out I didn't need much more than a simple client and some flags. It also helps that FastMail makes email aliases super easy, so I have many different emails going to the s…

Oh god yes. I have a few aliases and gmail was terrible with them. Fastmail is perfect.

I have lots of aliases. Anytime I sign up to anything, create an account on a site or otherwise hand out an email address it'll most likely be an alias. My pattern is basically @. and this lets me ban an alias quickly if I find it's being misused (i.e. sold or leaked to a third party.) No need to deal with dodgy unsubscribe methods that probably doesn't work any way, that alias is just dead now.

FastMail does this incredibly easy since you can set up an inbox to allow any alias, so you don't have to create them up front. I just type it in and whenever an email comes in it'll be routed properly. Gmail has this too I believe, but only with the + syntax (e.g. myalias+account@gmail.com) but unfortunately too many places have broken email validation routines that doesn't know how to deal with + signs.

Post reply on HN