Has someone tried it already? Any first impressions?
MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
171–180 of 280 posts
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#172In plain english can one explain whats broken with iMap/current email and how Inbox fixes it ? I m missing something sure here
IMAP is difficult to develop on.
1. IMAP's base spec (RFC 3501 [1]) offloads implementation on the client rather than the server. For example, the client must be able to parse the IMAP protocol, it must have be able to create threads by searching through emails, it needs to implement the logic for syncing, ... etc.
2. There are many IMAP extensions to patch the issues of the original spec [2], but implementation of these extensions across email providers is fragmented, and implementing them both server and client is plenty of work.
This is an attempt at a modern, cohesive API for email.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
I don't think it has to be read as especially malicious. He's trying to make a point with pointed language, but it doesn't necessarily imply ill-will.
Such nuances are lost in an anonymous internet forum. It doesn't have to be read that way (what does?) but that doesn't matter—look at the effect it has had.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#174Earlier 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.
Then you're just poisoning the well with a bit of ad hominem (in a pretty stupid way), saying that someone else's opinion is wrong because they're anonymous when you're anonymous yourself.
Whatever it is, it's worthless.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#175“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 don't even understand what the intention is with the scare quotes. Are they suggesting that google would claim to discontinue gmail, but not actually discontinue it?
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#176I guess I'm a little confused here. As far as I can tell this isn't an email platform; it's a service that wraps IMAP and POP and exposes RESTful services. The grand claims in the text makes me think they're going to provide something that replaces email addresses and provides a better protocol than IMAP but that's not what's going on as far as I can tell. Am I missing anything? I'm not trying to be an ass and IMAP a…
It's the platform upon which a better email can be built. The IMAP/POP wrappers provide backwards compatibility, so that you don't have to stop using the old email system while the new email is built around it. At some point, theoretically, IMAP/POP can be transparently replaced with better delivery protocols.
I disagree and agree.
You're right in that better protocols can be swapped out in this design pattern and that's fine; most decent external service consuming code does this so it makes sense in that regard.
But where I'm not convinced is in the API itself along with the location in which we are abstracting IMAP and POP at. The abstraction you could recreate most of what this service does with a language library so I don't really get why making it a service is even needed in the first place especially with so many worried about storing their data elsewhere. The API has limited ability to do push (webhooks are only good for web applications not thick or mobile applications) and I didn't really see how they're handling the dual authentication required.
But as I said I didn't want to just poopoo the idea; I'm curious as to where it goes but with version 1 I don't see what usefulness it gives me as a developer.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#177Your 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.
If it's any consolation, if I were to post something to HN, I'd appreciate this kind of brutal honesty above everything else. But I suspect I'm in the minority.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#178Your 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.
Please don't be aggressive like this on Hacker News. It violates the guidelines and degrades the discourse.
That sentence has no information in it—it's just rude—so the comment would be better without it.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#179Hey guys, for those who want to try the Inbox API (and don't want to install Vbox like me), I just have installed and configured a inbox instance into a terminal.com container! Feel free to test it and let me know what do you think.
Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but we're not planning to "go away" or get acquired or something If you've taken VC money, haven't you already gave up that choice? Despite pretenses, the VCs are going to want: a) IPO or b) acquisition. Since you assert b) is not your plan, do you really think you can become a $100m/year company (IPO) by charging for something that Google/MS/everyone else provides for free? Perhaps I am too pessimistic (or realist…
I think you're actually wrong about VC goals. Yes VCs look for acquisitions, but acquisitions only really move the needle when they're really big (>$100m). Anyone acquiring for those amounts aren't going to shut the product down.
It's pretty easy to name any number of >$100M acquisitions that have been shut down. Regardless, that's only a goal of VCs: there's no shortage of VC-funded companies that have been sold for far less than $100M when they couldn't raise the next round at a palatable price.
No startup company can make a defensible claim that their product will be around for the long haul.