11–20 of 57 posts
They release a decent product that sees some growth, but unfortunately it doesn't scale to their standards, and it gets sunset.
It makes me extremely hesitant to commit to new products - no mater how good and seamless the integration is to their other existing (and still surviving) products. I love using sheets, colab, drive, gmail, photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if Gmail was genius, it's almost 20 years old and hasn't really evolved that much since day 0.
How would you want it to evolve? It shows and sends emails good. The promotions and social tabs are nice but I’d probably rather those all just went to spam instead.
Yahoo mail is better for me because it implements the use of tabs, making e-mail multitasking a breeze. Also Yahoo's UI is more compact and less wasteful of screen real estate and just feels snappier while Gmail feels sluggish even on modern machines.
So yes, there's definitely room for Gmail to evolve beyond just barebones sending and receiving emails, as there's dozens of other companies who can do that just the same or better, because otherwise why use Gmail beyond the Google brand name, network effect, and integration to the wider Google-Chrome-Android ecosystem which is it's biggest strength and selling point, but as a stand alone email service it's pretty lackluster and unimpressive.
You don't need to be a Google employee to know its products lack innovation from day 1. It's a one trick pony company, having just created search, rest is only buy/copy/steal. It's a company rotten to the core. It bought a few companies back then and helped scale it with capital (Android, YouTube...), also copied others, like there's a whole Netflix documentary about Google Maps. Don't come saying that Gmail was geni…
Reaction: Um, kids? You're working for a number-8-in-the-Fortune-500 company, with a "keep turning our monopoly-business crank to make yet more money" financial model. Where are you getting the idea that the management of such a business should be non-boring, let alone visionary?
Why did you have to prefix your comment with “reaction”? Isn’t that assumed? Or can people interpret it in another way?
You don't need to be a Google employee to know its products lack innovation from day 1. It's a one trick pony company, having just created search, rest is only buy/copy/steal. It's a company rotten to the core. It bought a few companies back then and helped scale it with capital (Android, YouTube...), also copied others, like there's a whole Netflix documentary about Google Maps. Don't come saying that Gmail was geni…
Be fair, Gmail was groundbreaking. It's UX was miles ahead of anything else. Especially webmail UIs. Google was a good product company for a while. But the it wasn't anymore.
Not my experience. UX was more or less in line with everyone else, UI just looked cleaner and prettier because it didn't yet have obtrusive ads compared to the competition.
Gmail was groundbreaking because it offered 1GB of storage at launch compared to measly 100MB or so from Yahoo or Microsoft.
Google brand name + invite only scarcity at launch + huge storage space + no ads at launch = the formula the drove initial popularity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you have to prefix your comment with “reaction”? Isn’t that assumed? Or can people interpret it in another way?
It's a disclaimer of sorts - "this is my immediate reaction, probably somewhat emotional, which should not be taken too personally nor too seriously".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be fair, Gmail was groundbreaking. It's UX was miles ahead of anything else. Especially webmail UIs. Google was a good product company for a while. But the it wasn't anymore.
>It's UX was miles ahead of anything else. Not my experience. UX was more or less in line with everyone else, UI just looked cleaner and prettier because it didn't yet have obtrusive ads compared to the competition. Gmail was groundbreaking because it offered 1GB of storage at launch compared to measly 100MB or so from Yahoo or Microsoft. Google brand name + invite only scarcity at launch + huge storage space + no ad…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if Gmail was genius, it's almost 20 years old and hasn't really evolved that much since day 0.
How would you want it to evolve? It shows and sends emails good. The promotions and social tabs are nice but I’d probably rather those all just went to spam instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's UX was miles ahead of anything else. Not my experience. UX was more or less in line with everyone else, UI just looked cleaner and prettier because it didn't yet have obtrusive ads compared to the competition. Gmail was groundbreaking because it offered 1GB of storage at launch compared to measly 100MB or so from Yahoo or Microsoft. Google brand name + invite only scarcity at launch + huge storage space + no ad…
Gmail was the first single page application I remembered using. It was eye opening to many people what the web could be as an application platform. You could compose a message and have it follow you as you read other emails, for example. It was not just about storage space: Gmail was better in every way. Even the spam filter was smarter and better than everyone else’s for a very long time.
You don't need to be a Google employee to know its products lack innovation from day 1. It's a one trick pony company, having just created search, rest is only buy/copy/steal. It's a company rotten to the core. It bought a few companies back then and helped scale it with capital (Android, YouTube...), also copied others, like there's a whole Netflix documentary about Google Maps. Don't come saying that Gmail was geni…
All 10 are category defining (but at least top 3) products. I'd like to have a 1-trick pony like that one day!