Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E-mail didn't really evolve since Gmail. Why is it so hard to innovate?

blog.frontapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–54 of 54 posts

Re: E-mail didn't really evolve since Gmail. Why is it so hard to innovate?

#51

Post by quesera »

1stop wrote: post #46
qwerta wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Linux since 2002 and actually hate M$. But yes, it introduced Ajax and changed the world. Gmail was revolutionary because it offered 1GB when 10MB was the norm. Not because of UI.

Microsoft introduced a proprietary technology only IE5 could use and changed the world? Google implemented in both a maps app (completely new UI, and WAY more novel use of Ajax than outlook) and a mail app a standard that worked across all browsers (also something missing in outlook). Google showed us that you can use a new piece of tech across all browsers. Microsoft showed us you could do something in IE, and only…

> completely new UI, and WAY more novel use of Ajax than outlook

As to novelty: XMLHttpRequest was invented by Microsoft for Outlook Web Access. "Ajax" was invented by Jesse James Garret as a new name for XMLHttpRequest.

I remember the first time I saw someone use OWA on IE, thinking: HTF does that work? Then I remembered he was using IE and chalked it up to proprietary browser extensions, which was correct. Proprietary but useful enough that the other browsers eventually had to duplicate the feature, with different syntax.

That duplication is what made Google Maps (and later, Gmail) possible.

So, yes. Microsoft gets credit for this one. Not for the generosity of their hearts, but for doing it and making it work and dragging the rest of the world along behind them. That had been the tradition with browser tech since the beginning, with positive and negative effects. This was a positive one.

Definitely not a Microsoft apologist here. And XHR could have been better. But no one else cooked it up, so, they get some credit.

Re: E-mail didn't really evolve since Gmail. Why is it so hard to innovate?

#53

Post by enobrev »

pawelwentpawel wrote: post #48
enobrev wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you almost entirely. Although I do have one specific minor off-topic feature I'd love to have in email that I haven't seen anywhere. I want the ability to "like" an email, and have the sender know that I "liked" it. I don't want to write "yes, I agree", or even worse, a terse response of "like" as I feel that's a waste of my time, the sender's time, an unnecessary "+1" in their inbox. I just want a way t…

I like the idea. There is many ways to extend e-mail functionality by building additional layers on top of it. But imagine having a group e-mail conversation for a large number of people where just a fraction of them is using the featured e-mail client. How would you communicate this additional information to the other? More e-mails? Or just completely skip it? At http://www.mailcloudapp.com We're currently working o…

My first attempt at a solution, were I to actually try something like this - say, with my hypothetical chrome/firefox extension called LikeMail - would be to send out a canned email with custom headers.:

"enobrev has read and 'liked' your message with the LikeMail chrome extension! Download it _here_ so you can do the same with your emails."

Then on the recipient's client, if they have LikeMail, consume that message and hide it, while showing the appropriate signaling in the inbox, etc.

Definitely a clunky workaround, and can easily be considered spammy, I suppose, although if that automated message were customizable, maybe less so. I think the reason for the email (as opposed to skipping it) is to convey the info the action of "liking" is meant to convey. Essentially if I hit "like" button in LikeMail I'm trying to tell the sender "I read and liked your email". Sending nothing would go against that intention.

Re: E-mail didn't really evolve since Gmail. Why is it so hard to innovate?

#54

Post by 1stop »

quesera wrote: post #51
1stop wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft introduced a proprietary technology only IE5 could use and changed the world? Google implemented in both a maps app (completely new UI, and WAY more novel use of Ajax than outlook) and a mail app a standard that worked across all browsers (also something missing in outlook). Google showed us that you can use a new piece of tech across all browsers. Microsoft showed us you could do something in IE, and only…

> completely new UI, and WAY more novel use of Ajax than outlook As to novelty: XMLHttpRequest was invented by Microsoft for Outlook Web Access. "Ajax" was invented by Jesse James Garret as a new name for XMLHttpRequest. I remember the first time I saw someone use OWA on IE, thinking: HTF does that work? Then I remembered he was using IE and chalked it up to proprietary browser extensions, which was correct. Propriet…

This is like saying we should thank Sun for Java Applets, because they gave us web sockets, 3d graphics, etc in the browser. They dragged the whole industry into the future!

The could do what ajax does before microsoft "invented" XMLHttpRequest...

Or we could admit, that coming up with proprietary crap on the web doesn't mean much, the hard part is making it work for everyone.

Post reply on HN