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

421–430 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#421

Post by madeofpalk »

cdubzzz wrote: post #264
madeofpalk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that's missing here is the email _client_ story. I really like Google's Inbox and there's no amount of money I can pay anyone else for a similar experience.

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…

Yes I really like Inbox.

It works really well as a 'TODO' list for email, plus with niceties for travel and what not.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#422

Post by zamalek »

xg15 wrote: post #268
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, go pay for email. ... and don't ever write emails to anyone who uses GMail. And tell all your friends who use GMail they shouldn't write emails to you.

I use Fastmail and I can communicate with everyone just fine. I simply had to follow their instructions for setting up my domain. Without that configuration, near every email provider will reject your mail - for good reason.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#423

Post by urda »

scrollaway wrote: post #256
mrtksn wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

> Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? Yes and no. GMail does support IMAP access (Go here to enable it: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#settings/fwdandpop ). IMAP is a standard that allows you to access an inbox remotely. OTOH, as long as you are using @gmail.com in your address, you are at their mercy. Go to https://www.gandi.net and purchase a domain name, it'll cost you FastM…

AWS WorkMail is also a good alternative, I'm looking into that now that I have a domain name I can consider "home".

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#424

Post by scarface74 »

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…

Never in the history of computing has your hardware required the manufacturer's blessing to run apps.

Except for every game console that has existed since the early 80s.

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/227899-atari-v-coleco-lawsu...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#425

Post by scarface74 »

jkahrs595 wrote: post #379
simias wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's stopping you from sending and receiving regular sms, mms messages to your iPhone using family? It's not like there is a separate app for iMessage and text messages.

Your SMS messages will even go to their iPads and Macs.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#426

Post by Alex3917 »

erikb wrote: post #189
Alex3917 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW it's already possible to build apps inside email. There are now full ecommerce stores that run inside gmail messages.

Please give some examples. This sounds horrible, but therefore also true.

At the Inbox Awesome conference this year there was a talk on this, not sure if it’s online.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#427

Post by zamalek »

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 have one point of contention: Google is already monetizing Gmail with Gsuite. Gmail is to Gsuite as Fedora is to RHEL. It's a public testbed where they try out new ideas before moving them into LTS.

Regardless, many of the disagreements with you seem to have stopped reading at (2). I am completely aware of the irony of my using Google devices while simultaneously criticizing them for their shitty practices. If you were to point that out to me I'd agree with you. Pointing that out to me isn't a personal attack, it's a statement of the facts of human nature: we are all hypocrites.

I can honestly see why AMP is a clever idea from a technical standpoint. Heck, if Google made the switch while keeping the same look and feel (minus the dynamic content), I doubt most people would notice beyond "Gmail somehow got faster."

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#428

Post by gowld »

ehnto wrote: post #69
makecheck wrote: post #31

Nothing says “we’re listening to your concerns about AMP” like rolling it out further to interfere with a function that is even less suited for AMP. Also, technology companies have a real problem assigning appropriate value to maintenance tasks that just keep things stable and usable. I’ve had infrastructure responsibilities over the years and the hardest thing about it was that nobody really knows or cares how much…

Part of why I don't advocate for CDNs when you don't need them is because I want to build robust sites that work for years untouched. For timespans over a year, anything not on your server is brittle. Oops, CDN changed its URL/didn't update their ssl ciphers/went bust and shut down completely and now {js-framework}/{css-library} is missing and my site is broken. What an unforeseeable circumstance!

Right, better to have your site fail today, then to risk it failing in the future. You couldn't make an archive of your site for emergency access.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#429

Post by gowld »

berbec wrote: post #204
username223 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> competent after escalation. Was escalation as simple as "I would like to speak to a supervisor, please," or was there a more complicated incantation?

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "Klaatu barada nikto!"

I said "necktie" and now my computer has daemons.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#430

Post by gowld »

Alex3917 wrote: post #58
FridgeSeal wrote: post #13

" “modernize” email, allowing “engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” " Whenever a service or company purports to make something "engaging" and "interactive" you just know that useability and actual, tangible usefulness are going to go out the window in favour of marketer-driven choices. We don't 'engage more' with your software/service because you changed everything to optimise for engagement and…

FWIW it's already possible to build apps inside email. There are now full ecommerce stores that run inside gmail messages.

They run stores in the vendor's email, or the customer's email? bug difference
Post reply on HN