71–80 of 459 posts
> Outside of some of the bundling features Bundling (in the inbox) is THE reason for using Inbox. It's the only unique feature. It's the thing that changed how I use email. If I use folders it's the kiss of death for any email that a rule sends to that folder. I want a single list but with some items collapsed. Email went from unthreaded to threaded (reducing the complexity massively. Bundles takes that one step furt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability to mark emails as done or to pin them were hallmark features of the Inbox interface and they both take significantly more work in Gmail. I'm severely disappointed that they've decided to axe Inbox without at least pretending to care - by eg. providing a user survey.
Oh no, pinning! I've so thoroughly integrated that into my expectations and behavior that I didn't even think about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can confirm that what I want is Inbox's UI. The ease of postponing items into the "Snoozed" queue, and low-effort addition of task items, are both lacking from the stock GMail app.
I just checked and you can actually set swipe left to snooze in the gmail app now.
I'm a happy and heavy user of Inbox, this came as a shock to me. I guess I'll wait and see by January how is Gmail, but I'm not looking forward. > By retiring Inbox, is Google losing a valuable ability to experiment with new email functionality in a way that’s tough to do with a billion-user mainstay? I also agree with this. If Google decided to let Inbox go, same way as with Wave, then the next "email UX experiment"…
Because the next innovation may be a completely different direction. I much prefer Inbox to Gmail, but I'd be a lot less happy for the Inbox name to be kept but the actual app to replaced by some completely new vision.
> Its base is formed by users which already showed adoption to new ideas and UI.
I bought into Inbox’s specific vision, not the generic idea of novelty. If Inbox didn't work out for Google, I'm disappointed, but I'd rather they kill it openly than that I get force fed some new unrelated novelty approach because I was using Inbox and must therefore be into whatever.
It's really interesting to see the super-knee jerk reaction here when the article itself even says that most of the features made their way into gmail. (I was a heavy inbox user, and i am happy with the stuff that made it's way into gmail). Outside of some of the bundling features, i'm curious what actual difference people are complaining about here.
WTF I use inbox for everything. GMail is basically unusable for me at this point. This is a complete disaster.
It's really interesting to see the super-knee jerk reaction here when the article itself even says that most of the features made their way into gmail. (I was a heavy inbox user, and i am happy with the stuff that made it's way into gmail). Outside of some of the bundling features, i'm curious what actual difference people are complaining about here.
Bundling (including the "Trips") is the only reason I still use any google web client. It's not trivial.
Google's ADHD with products strikes again. It's really hard to get excited over new Google offerings because they just go away when Google gets bored of them, time and time again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Outside of bundling Bundling is the main development that Inbox brought to the table.
Going to the video tape: https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/10/an-inbox-that-works-for... Three things are highlighted: Extraction of info from items and display (now in gmail) Bundles (some made it into gmail) Reminders, assists, and Snooze (now mostly in gmail) So i'm not sure i'd agree with you here, but i definitely would agree that of the big three, bundling made it in the least :)
Not trying to be facetious or anything, but honestly I wonder why at this point anybody would bother using any Google product besides the triumvirate of Search/Maps/Gmail. What's the point?