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

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#291

Post by phoneboy »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #248
tarsinge wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice try but there is no logic between your points 1 and 2 to come to the third. Apple sells hardware and is not a monopoly, so if their customers are happy with their choice then good for them. On the other hand Google is a monopoly, so a lot of people are not ok with them abusing their position to hijack the web (that they already “own”) and email. Edit: typo

Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...

Don't be ridiculous, Google is a platform company. Any service they create contributes to the same platform. Hence, if search is a monopoly so is the rest of the services.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#292

Post by mtgx »

> AMP is, to begin with, Google exerting its market power to extend its control over others’ content. Facebook is doing it, so Google has to

The last thing Google needs to do these days is copy Facebook. Almost everything Facebook has done in the past few years has pushed users away from the platform.

Also, if Google's goal with AMP really was to "make the web faster" how exactly will integrating AMP web pages into email make email faster? Seems to me like it would make email slower...? (at least if we discount marketing spam).

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#293

Post by robteix »

scrollaway wrote: post #256
mrtksn wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? I'm quite a bit uneasy with Google lately but it's not feasible for me to move to another e-mail provider because my user account on many other websites is tied to my Gmail account and not all websites support e-mail changing. At this point, I would argue that Gmail reached a public infrastructure status and it's not acceptable of Google to take…

> Is there a way to keep my.name@gmail.com but moving to another provider? Yes and no. GMail does support IMAP access (Go here to enable it: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#settings/fwdandpop ). IMAP is a standard that allows you to access an inbox remotely. OTOH, as long as you are using @gmail.com in your address, you are at their mercy. Go to https://www.gandi.net and purchase a domain name, it'll cost you FastM…

I love Gmail's UI but years ago I realized that I couldn't trust my online identity to a single entity.

What I did was to sign up for Fastmail with my own custom domain and forward stuff to my @gmail.com address. This way I continue using Gmail but with my own domain.

I could do this with GSuite (and in fact I did for a couple of years) but GSuite accounts often have limitations compared to regular Gmail accounts and I didn't want to deal with that.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#294

Post by akvadrako »

r3bl wrote: post #280
RobertRoberts wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...

There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo... they're all viable products that you can use to accomplish 90ish% of what Google could find, and maybe even more now that Google strips historical data (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840 , from a month ago). Since you're mentioning SEO, I just checked and 15.8% of searches for my website came from non-Go…

Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo are not a list of competitors. Yahoo is based on Bing & Google¹. DDG uses a lot of sources, but I believe the bulk of results come from Yahoo and Bing.

I agree there are options, but they are Bing and Yandex. The others are just mashups.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#295

Post by pedrogpimenta »

shao87 wrote: post #283

I've left Gmail for Tutanota a long time ago. I prefer having a niche service that focuses on privacy and is committed to open source. They'll even release the app on F-Droid soon, couldn't be more psyched: https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/secure-mail-open-source

Why Tutanota? Which were the services you compared?

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#296

Post by pedrogpimenta »

ImaCake wrote: post #274

>See, email belongs to a special class. Nobody really likes it Well, I like email. It does exactly what I need it to do. It doesn't have the pressures of chat or phone calls, and has the versatility to do all kinds of useful things. Best of all, it can't be broken by a single company and a stupid decision.

Did you continue reading after that sentence?

I also like forks, but I'm usually not telling people how great forks are. That's what the article says.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#297

Post by pedrogpimenta »

rowyourboat wrote: post #221

Okay, I'll jump. Any tips on a good mail/calendaring/contact solution that isn't google, and works and syncs across browser and mobile devices?

I'm in love with https://mailbox.org since I moved with them, almost a year ago. They support standards. It works on the browser, on Apple Mail/Calendar/Contacts/Reminders and even on Android with open source software (or others, of course).

The basic plan costs 1€/month to have 3 email addresses that always go to the same place. They have something that I can't live without anymore: Disposable email addresses. On the basic plan you can have up to 11 disposable email addresses to sign up on services without the worry of spam or that they share your email address with third parties.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#299

Post by PeterisP »

david-cako wrote: post #119
gerdesj wrote: post #29

Thank goodness that a bunch of clever kids are going to replace boring old SMTP n MTAs n MUAs and stuff with this bollocks: https://www.ampproject.org/ 8) email works and doesn't need fixing. It (nearly) transports more messages every day than is countable and just works. SNR - now that needs fixing and a good start would be enforcing plain text.

Email “works” but it’s ass for consistently displaying anything more than text. Marketers want to make money, and right now stuffing emails with images in favor of proper layout is the only easy way to do it. Of course google also wants all of your email googling its way through their servers.

The "active email" demo on the original article is a great example. I want to ensure that my primary inbox is a place where others can never ever send something like that.

It's an exaggerated version of the image-heavy email newsletters - these are obviously nice for the marketer, but the messages that I want to receive are not like that, they don't need this feature, it's only useful for those who want to steal my attention.

If marketers really need it, perhaps it could be a useful way to automatically forward any messages using this technology to spam.

Post reply on HN