It's like they forced Facebook and an email client to mate.
Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
291–300 of 341 posts
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
because they earn their money elsewhere ? This is a terribly odd statement. Microsoft has shown, time and time again, that they can shaft their customers because many of them have, or at least had, few alternatives. Google might make a lot of its money on advertising, but it wouldn't make a penny if it didn't have the trust and respect of its customers.
Yes it would. Neither I nor anyone I know use Google because we trust or respect it, we use it because it works well.
Trust is far and away my highest priority when deciding on online services, and if it isn't yours... well good luck friend, you're going to need it.
Your email is likely to be an important part of your life's documentation, containing an awful lot of very personal information. An unscrupulous provider could use it in all sorts of horrible ways - off the top of my head, how about a lucrative employment screening service that lists of how often you've mentioned getting wasted the night before, or throwing a sickie, or dissed a colleague... let alone the value of strategy, customer communications and other immensely valuable commercial conversations.
This is why many here refuse to use email services they don't control. I myself use Gmail, because I trust Google. Not because they say "Don't be evil", but because I think they understand how their entire business depends on trust. Compare this to Facebook, for whom privacy seems to be an afterthought. Their business is being badly hurt because they continue to trample over their user's trust.
And what about Microsoft? For me, the rorts Microsoft have carried out in the past twenty years (cynically stacking standards organisations with their minions to bulldoze their document format through was the last straw for me) counts them out. I'll never use another MS operating system or online service, end of story. No matter how much better than the competition.
So for me, particularly for online services, trust trumps functionality - absolutely.
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#293We haven't instantly forgotten how Microsoft handles Skydrive, have we?: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4265086 I think I'll pass on putting my email through their systems. Although I have to admit this looks way better than GMail. I hope this inspires Google to do something about their interface design.
You needn't look any farther than Hotmail to grow wary of the merits of their new service. And there's the whole Skype brouhaha. Microsoft have an edge over Google in that they aren't perceived to be as morally bankrupt, when it comes to privacy and protecting their users (because they earn their money elsewhere), but with the Skype criticism, that may be subject to change. It's a nice flank of attack to use against…
I certainly perceive Microsoft to be morally bankrupt. Google less so, for two reasons:
1. They haven't been around as long and so haven't had to decide how far they'll go when the next big thing comes along.
2. I think they "get" trust, and realise their entire business depends on it. Facebook... not so much. Their continued retraction of new services show that trust isn't even an afterthought.
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#294Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#295"we remimagined email"..."there are 30% more emails visible."
Doesn't sound like a "reimagination". But the visuals are nice
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they don't have to close the account, they choose to, rather than deal with the law's requirements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Pr... > While children under 13 can legally give out personal information with their parents' permission, many websites altogether disallow underage children from using their services due to the amount of paperwork involved.
What distinction are you making here? They also choose to not give you infinite storage space for free and choose to not indemnify you for copyright infringement when you send ripped mp3s as attachments. Every company operating in the US has to decide if offering services to children is worth the extra regulatory oversight. If you'd like, I can rephrase, but the meaning is the same: Google doesn't offer anything like…
I believe the point is that you're lying when you say, quote, "they have to close the account".
Google could simply choose not to collect personal information on accounts of children. This would be, literally, one line of code to implement. They've chosen instead to ban children from Google services, which is in no way required by law.
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
What distinction are you making here? They also choose to not give you infinite storage space for free and choose to not indemnify you for copyright infringement when you send ripped mp3s as attachments. Every company operating in the US has to decide if offering services to children is worth the extra regulatory oversight. If you'd like, I can rephrase, but the meaning is the same: Google doesn't offer anything like…
The law provides a way to offer accounts to under-13s. They don't have to close the account, they just choose to close it instead of complying with the added burden that would be required.
If providing the current set of GMail features (including price) is uneconomical for Google after support for under-13s is added (and, AFAIK, all of the external evidence we have suggests that it is), then you're making a distinction without a difference.
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
What distinction are you making here? They also choose to not give you infinite storage space for free and choose to not indemnify you for copyright infringement when you send ripped mp3s as attachments. Every company operating in the US has to decide if offering services to children is worth the extra regulatory oversight. If you'd like, I can rephrase, but the meaning is the same: Google doesn't offer anything like…
I believe the point is that you're lying when you say, quote, "they have to close the account". Google could simply choose not to collect personal information on accounts of children. This would be, literally, one line of code to implement. They've chosen instead to ban children from Google services, which is in no way required by law.
Literally, one line of code? That's a pretty amazing claim. How familiar are you with Google's code?
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#299The only compelling feature for me on this is the Skype integration. I would love to use GTalk/Hangout if only more people use it.
Re: Introducing Outlook.com - Modern Email for the Next Billion Mailboxes
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a big Android/Google fan, I can't say they are exactly innocent when it comes to the sort of thing Microsoft was called out for with Skydrive. When Google+ first came out quite a lot of people lost their "Google lives" (including their gmail accounts they had been using for years) when Google banned them for being under 13 or using a pseudonym.
The under 13 thing, as has been discussed before, is due to COPPA. Google doesn't offer anything like hotmail's family account (where the child's account is managed by a proven parent's account), so if they find out that you're under 13, they have to close your account and they aren't allowed to warn you that they will do so (or let you go back and change your birthdate). As for the pseudonym thing, that never occurr…
I was setting up my wife's account for youtube and accidentally put today's date in for her birthdate. I was immediately locked out and had to pay a fee to get her email back.