121–130 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's on GitHub, you can self-host it if you wanted to. It's not a service yet .
Because self-hosting a mail service is totally something my mom can do... (As the sibling comment notes, I'm talking from the perspective of the end user, not that of a technologist. We need to remember who we're ultimately building these things for...)
Your claim that your product will not be discontinued is worthless. If you're so sure of that, put your money where your mouth is, and offer an SLA with a contractual minimum duration you promise to keep the service up, and significant monetary penalties if you fail to meet it. Doesn't sound like a good idea? Then shut up.
[deleted]
“Inbox is an email company. Google is an advertising company. This product is our focus, and will not be ‘discontinued’ unexpectedly.” Burn! Very amusing. But for all we know they will be acqui-hired, maybe even by Google, and then shifted to a different project.
This got people talking. It's a smart angle to get noticed and to get press. The goal is not to beat Google, it's to not run out of money and die as a company. To that end, taking a swing at Google is a smart move.
-abandonment. You know, I wasn't thinking of it, but now it's top of my mind.
-delusion. If a funded company talks about the misled motivations of others, I instantly question their self-honesty or delusion. I mean throughout this thread we see claims of not being bought out, etc. You don't take VC money if those things aren't always on the table and top of mind. The selling out already happened.
I don't think it was good at all. Instead of talking about the product or its place, people are talking about that commentary, and not in a complimentary way.
As an aside, "Inbox App" brings you to http://inboxapp.co/. There's also http://inbox.com (which is a decided two generations ago site), and then http://inboxapp.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, the probability of this being discontinued, if it follows normal trends, is dramatically higher than pretty much any Google product, and worse the notion that the "product is their focus" is specious: getting investment cash or a buyout is their focus, as it is with virtually all startups. Moralizing or taking shots at competitors is a dangerous tactic when you live in a glass house.
FWIW, inboxapp is self-hosted and under AGPL, so it's forkable.
“Inbox is an email company. Google is an advertising company. This product is our focus, and will not be ‘discontinued’ unexpectedly.” Burn! Very amusing. But for all we know they will be acqui-hired, maybe even by Google, and then shifted to a different project.
I said this in the other thread and I know it sounds cliché, but we're not planning to "go away" or get acquired or something. We've always positioned this company as a long-term play, and made that very clear when hiring, raising money, etc. It's just not possible to go after something big if you plan to "flip" the company quickly.
And I'm sure that when Google was founded it never imagined things it would be doing years later at the expense of some users of it's products.
[1] People cheat of course but also people change over time with how they see the world.
Your claim that your product will not be discontinued is worthless. If you're so sure of that, put your money where your mouth is, and offer an SLA with a contractual minimum duration you promise to keep the service up, and significant monetary penalties if you fail to meet it. Doesn't sound like a good idea? Then shut up.
> Doesn't sound like a good idea? Then shut up. Your comment is needlessly mean-spirited. The top-voted comment on the recent Show HN thread would seem to apply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7984826
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm just citing where I got the 'theory.' The OP of the comment could have made their point just fine without being confrontational or 'angry' as you put it. I don't see why people are defending someone's rudeness, you can get your point across without being a jerk about it.
It's more subtle than that. The 'shut up' detracts from the comment. Being a jerk is bad. But being confrontational is in this case a benefit. The first line is "Your claim that your product will not be discontinued is worthless." This is confrontational in a good way, and this line is not being a jerk. It's pointing out a serious flaw without attacking anyone.
Something like, "How will you back up your claim of the product not being discontinued?" or "What will prevent your product from being discontinued?" Gets the same point across without coming off rude (it may just be me but saying "your claim ... is worthless" seems rude.) The OP of the comment definitely has a good point but it's said in a way that isn't constructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Names are always available when you have some money to invest in buying rights and domains.
The name is Inbox App, not Inbox. Nothing special there. I'm willing to bet that they'll have significant problems with the name if they try to call it just "Inbox". First, they didn't even get the inbox.com domain, theirs is inboxapp.com. Second, they don't seem to have a trademark on the product name as "Inbox" and I doubt that they'd get one. Third, their company name is Inbox App, Inc., so it doesn't seem like th…
[1]: http://whois.domaintools.com/inboxapp.com
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20110201102718/http://inboxapp.c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not even an argument point, but just being used as a way to call someone a name without owning it.
No it isn't. If I want to call the poster a fuckwad, I'll call him one. The only reason I linked the comic is because it may not be common knowledge to everyone where the 'theory' is from.
You seriously don't think you called him a fuckwad?