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

MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#201

Post by __david__ »

x1798DE wrote: post #165
unfunco wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's on GitHub, you can self-host it if you wanted to. It's not a service yet .

Self-hosting your e-mail is really not much better, from a security point of view, than letting gmail have your e-mail. Google has some of the best security people in the world , if your mail is safe anywhere, it's safe with Google. The problem, of course, is that Google is definitely going to try to read your mail, use and retain your private data indefinitely. The problem is that if you host your own e-mail server,…

I've seen this argument before, and, while it's true to some extent, it seems like FUD to me. The same exact argument could be used for every single server you host yourself. But how many people here have an AWS machine running HTTP and SSH?

How many of them have been compromised by the Russian mafia?

People are so scared of email, and I just don't understand it.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#202

Post by arihant »

The problem they are trying to solve is wicked. The problem with IMAP is not that it's awfully complicated - that would be easier to fix with a cleaner and simpler library/SDK. The problem with IMAP is that every service provider fucks up in implementing it in new and surprising ways.

It's very hard to write a program to work with Gmail, Yahoo and Outlook properly without implementing their edge cases. Let alone many thousands of other providers, and many millions of privately hosted servers.

IMAP should be fixed or replaced with something that the implementor cannot screw easily. But that will likely never happen so I'm going to use this.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#203

Post by grinich »

kbenson wrote: post #197
PeterGriffin wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.

I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, afte…

Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account.

And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forward. In fact, our investors decided to invest explicitly because they believe our team is the best able to make decisions on growing a sustainable business and solving the developer platform challenges. No matter how good the VC, they obviously don't have the background+skills+focus to design APIs (and likewise shouldn't).

One of our investors likes to say, "We're in your corner, but not in your kitchen," which I've always thought framed the relationship well. I know there's lots of cynicism in the tech world with buyouts/acqui-hires and swarmy VCs, so I can understand where this reaction comes from. And unfortunately I don't have a solid rebuttal other than saying "trust me" with the test of time. Clearly that doesn't work for the HN skeptics. :/

It's also worth pointing out that not all acquisitions are terrible. Google Docs came from an acquisition. So did Google Earth. Facebook continues to run Parse, and Instagram, and Beluga via FB Messenger. Sometimes these acquisitions legitimately make sense, but I think the important thing is keeping the right people in positions to make those decisions when the time comes, and not the people who are just looking for the immediate financial return.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#204

Post by selmnoo »

PeterGriffin wrote: post #189
personZ wrote: post #18

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.

I'm an idiot, but I'm willing to believe there are still people out there who love what they do, and would stand by it, even if Corporation X comes knocking on the door with a pot of gold. I'd rather cheer for them and be disappointed, than dismiss them in advance and live my life perceiving the world through a cynical lens. Huh. I didn't know I can write so dramatically. You catch my drift, though.

Well, I think everyone kind of breaks down with their "morals" or idealistic visions when presented with the word "billion". E.g. see Occulus Rift founder Palmer Lucey's posts on Reddit from years ago claiming he will never sell the company under any condition.

But a quick offer with a billion was made and just like that Oculus was Facebook's.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#205

Post by xorcist »

jmathai wrote: post #135
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #102

I 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…

I think the best way forward is to wrap IMAP instead of trying to come up with something entirely new. The ultimate goal is a better protocol but we won't get there by simply building a better protocol.

True.

To start: IMAP is an asynchronous protocol. The impedance mismatch should be obvious. The roundtrips will kill any performance you could hope for.

The right way to do this would be to do what was done for most other successful protocols and put together a new RFC with best practices, and expire the old mess ASAP. Then make room for whatever calendar extensions or send-later flags you might wish for.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#206

Post by pm »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #102

I 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…

I'm quite sure that Context.IO does the same thing, as I've used it before (although they directly interfaced with IMAP).

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#207

Post by staunch »

arasmussen wrote: post #133
Spooky23 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is? I've routinely used email like an IM system with folks in different companies. GMail will spool email in <30 seconds. Exchange can be near instantaneous.

My gmail email regularly doesn't make it to my inbox until more than 10 minutes after it has been sent. It fucking blows.

FYI: If you have "Undo" enabled there is a delay on sending outgoing email from Gmail.

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#208

Post by xorcist »

pc wrote: post #196
JetSpiegel wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, "platform"? Where's the RFC?

That's unfair -- not all platforms have IETF specs (iOS, Android, AWS, etc). You might prefer platforms that have proper specifications, but the presence of one is not implicit in the term.

But none of those went up against a platform which did!

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#209

Post by [deleted] »

grinich wrote: post #107
GuiA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ouch. We're just a few hackers trying to fix broken developer tools. And we (gwillen and anyone who agrees with his comment, myself included) are just a few hackers who are tired of having the rug pulled under their feet when $CORP inevitably comes with the big bucks and all claims made by the founders in the early days of the company mysteriously disappear from the homepage. Talk is cheap.

I like to think that shipping code is the best argument. https://github.com/inboxapp/inbox But yeah, I totally understand the lousy feeling of being burned when $STARTUP gets acquired or shut down. Wish I could say more to quell your concerns. We're just going to keep working on this every day to earn respect from developers. We don't take it lightly. /edit

[deleted]

Re: MIT And Dropbox Alums Launch Inbox, a Next-Generation Email Platform

#210

Post by me1010 »

grinich wrote: post #203
kbenson wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point the parent comments are trying to make, factually correct or not, is that it's not entirely within the control of the people/company developing the product to determine whether they accept a buy-out if they have accepted outside money. It's not cynicism to point out when people make statements they may not have the ability to back up. Whether that's actually the case is less clear to me though, afte…

Working on a problem you care deeply about with great people is already a pot of gold. It's something that money literally cannot buy, and much harder to create than than cash in one's bank account. And as for control, maybe I should just say it explicitly: we have raised investment but are still in full control of the company (aside: it'd be nuts if we weren't at the stage), and plan to keep it that way going forwar…

So, since you seem to be a developer on this -I'd like to ask:

1. If I run my own email server and do not have email addresses from yahoo, google, et al, how does this help me?

2. Is there a way to strip html off every incoming message, but retain the original intent of the formatting?

3. Is the API compatible with PGP? Can I enable PGP encryption at the server level? For example, say the client connected to the server sends unencrypted mail over the SSL encrypted connection... is there a command to automatically encrypt the message to the end user if a PGP key is found on a public server?

4. It seems, much to my surprise, that there is a push toward permanent on-line storage of email -- even though this is extremely insecure [must trust multiple unknown parties/countries/servers/continuous rule of law, etc] and prone to failure as opposed to local only storage -- is there a "local storage" option similar to pop3 for those clients that wish to store email on cheap and easily secured local drives?

5. Tons of other questions... but these are the first four I could think of...

Post reply on HN