In killing Inbox, Google takes another swipe at its most passionate users

Post by hakfoo » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 7:25 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #96

GW150914 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need goodwill until you need it, and then it’s almost impossible to garner. How does that saying go? When you’re on top of the world you can do no wrong, when you’re down you can do no right? A lot of giant companies have to learn this the hard way, probably due to institutional inertia, apathy, lack of foresight, and the reality that today’s C-levels will probably be gone before that shit hits the fan.

If you are banking on B2C-related "goodwill" to save a company whose revenue model is basically all B2B , then you're already dead. Google fairly obviously is not doing that.

Post by Moru » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

giancarlostoro wrote: post #164

jamesrcole wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google seems more willing than most to shut down their offerings. While there's nothing wrong with that, it does give users less of a reason to use one of their services, because you never know when it might just go away.

If they're not making profits off something assume it can and will shut down.

Post by djaychela » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 7:37 AM UTC

_wp3r wrote: post #127

djaychela wrote: post #32

I use and like inbox, mostly because I took straight away to using the snooze function - the best thing I've found in an email client, full stop. While this can apparently be done in Gmail now, I'd like to look for an alternative at this point - paid - to move from Google. Any suggestions for an email client that has decent android support, and offers a snooze function?

Gmail has snooze. With the settings to customize your swipe in each direction.

Post by manquer » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 7:38 AM UTC

humbledrone wrote: post #225

mbrumlow wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks RhodesianHunter. > 1. AWS saves us money despite the apparent higher costs because our developers spend more time working on our core business than managing infrastructure, and developer time is our most expensive resource. But in most cases you lose any preserved savings because of the very ease of use and lack of needing to think about the infrastructure management. This is because more often than not proble…

Does part of your core business also involve mining silicon, crystalizing it, cutting the crystals into wafers, and then etching those wafers to make the chips your servers are built from? Somewhere, you're drawing the line between what you build in-house and what you outsource. Where to draw the line depends on many factors. There's definitely no "right" place, such as never using cloud resources.

Post by tannhaeuser » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 7:55 AM UTC

dankohn1 wrote: post #238

tannhaeuser wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that also means if it doesn't become profitable, it'll be shut down on short notice. Which is exactly the reason nobody is considering Google Cloud, and going to AWS and Azure instead. Google knows this (they're not stupid after all) and seems to be pulling out of kubernetes development recently.

Google is not pulling out of Kubernetes development. Their contributions have stayed at a very high level and they remain the largest single contributor, although their % of all contributions has declined over time as many more companies have gotten involved. You may have gotten confused by this clickbait TechCrunch headline, which does not match the article content: https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/29/google-steps-bac…