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

The new desktop Outlook is a bad idea

windowscentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: The new desktop Outlook is a bad idea

#151

Post by dgellow »

mike_hearn wrote: post #148
dgellow wrote: post #144

Just curious, would people here pay for a Windows native mail client focused on offering a great user experience? I work on multiple Windows projects and had in mind to create my own mail client since a while, but I’m skeptical people would pay for one given the number of free options already available (even if they all kind of suck IMHO). Or asked another way, what would make you pay for an outlook alternative?

It doesn't make much sense to talk about Windows native GUI these days. There's no such thing anymore. Win32 is no longer viable due to using controls and APIs that haven't been updated for years (decades?), ropey support for hidpi displays and other basics. WinUI, the official replacement, has problems and isn't used by large parts of Windows itself anyway. That's OK though. If you look at this thread, you can see t…

I know, I'm familiar with the Windows GUI ecosystem and understand what people mean by native. My question was to know if people would pay for an Outlook alternative that "works offline, works with files, isn't too laggy, consumes reasonable amounts of RAM, integrates well with the OS".

So far nobody said yes.

Re: The new desktop Outlook is a bad idea

#152

Post by wpm »

dgellow wrote: post #151
mike_hearn wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't make much sense to talk about Windows native GUI these days. There's no such thing anymore. Win32 is no longer viable due to using controls and APIs that haven't been updated for years (decades?), ropey support for hidpi displays and other basics. WinUI, the official replacement, has problems and isn't used by large parts of Windows itself anyway. That's OK though. If you look at this thread, you can see t…

I know, I'm familiar with the Windows GUI ecosystem and understand what people mean by native. My question was to know if people would pay for an Outlook alternative that "works offline, works with files, isn't too laggy, consumes reasonable amounts of RAM, integrates well with the OS". So far nobody said yes.

I’d imagine most individuals don’t pay for Outlook either. The question you might ask is “will self employed folks or small businesses or medium businesses or large businesses buy my email client vs using Outlook they get for free with their M365 subscription and can call MS for support for?”

That said, on the Mac at least, there are a number of paid email clients that are fairly popular and seem to be sustainable, so maybe there is a market after all. I always figured those apps were more “a native app for Gmail” than for Exchange.

Re: The new desktop Outlook is a bad idea

#153

Post by dgellow »

wpm wrote: post #152
dgellow wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, I'm familiar with the Windows GUI ecosystem and understand what people mean by native. My question was to know if people would pay for an Outlook alternative that "works offline, works with files, isn't too laggy, consumes reasonable amounts of RAM, integrates well with the OS". So far nobody said yes.

I’d imagine most individuals don’t pay for Outlook either. The question you might ask is “will self employed folks or small businesses or medium businesses or large businesses buy my email client vs using Outlook they get for free with their M365 subscription and can call MS for support for?” That said, on the Mac at least, there are a number of paid email clients that are fairly popular and seem to be sustainable, s…

Yes, iOS and macOS have a fairly decent market for paid email clients. I myself bought AirMail years ago (before it moved to a subscription model).

Re: The new desktop Outlook is a bad idea

#154

Post by Zelphyr »

hulitu wrote: post #10
Zelphyr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All Microsoft needed to do is look to the Apple Music app to know how bad an idea building it on WebView is. But, yeah, I wholeheartedly agree that they should either develop or use a native framework (Flutter perhaps?) rather than trying to shoehorn a technology that has never been very good for application development.

> All Microsoft needed to do is look to the Apple Music app to know how bad an idea building it on WebView is. Teams.

Coming back to this a week late but, MY GOD YES!
Post reply on HN