Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Inbox Throws Blow At Google... No Flinch?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the there-can-be-only-two dept.

The Internet 207

CWmike writes "Facebook's new messaging system may not be a Gmail killer, but it's definitely another blow in the growing battle between two Internet bigwigs. Facebook took the wraps off what it's calling a modern messaging system on Monday. The new system is designed to handle the convergence of different kinds of messages — Facebook messages, IMs, SMS and e-mail — and bring them together under a single social umbrella. The system also allows users to have a facebook.com email address, though it will work with other e-mail systems like Gmail and Yahoo. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is adamant that it's not intended to replace e-mail, but industry analysts say the new system will almost certainly draw some users away from Yahoo mail and Google's Gmail. Meanwhile, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Computerworld that he's not worried at all about Facebook's new 'Social Inbox.' 'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Uh huh ... (5, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247566)

'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'

Upon returning to his office after the press conference, Mr. Schmidt was heard to say, "I'm gonna fuckin' KILL Facebook!"

Schmidt might not be worried, but I am. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247616)

More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

Re:Schmidt might not be worried, but I am. (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247696)

More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.

Re:Schmidt might not be worried, but I am. (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247722)

More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.

Well, if the answer to that question (and I agree, it's a legitimate question) happens to be "nothing", well, I'm afraid I won't be losing much sleep over it.

Re:Schmidt might not be worried, but I am. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248096)

I wouldn't say that it's inevitable, but the odds are really long on Facebook still being relevant 10 years from now. It could happen, but given the lack of competence exhibited by Facebook's managers, I would be surprised if it was still relevant in 5.

Re:Schmidt might not be worried, but I am. (4, Interesting)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248932)

The lack of competence goes all the way to the top. Facebook is coasting on inertia at this point and surviving on the lack of a decent competitor. As far as I can tell the current business model is based upon taking away the features users like and adding ones they don't want. And somehow some businesses still advertise there.

Re:Uh huh ... (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247984)

Or he calmly went back to his near-utopian Google campus and said, "I feel bad for Facebook. They have no idea what we have up our sleeve." And then he spent the rest of the day playing ping pong.

Re:Uh huh ... (0, Flamebait)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248780)

Troll, huh. Humorless bastards.

It's been done (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247622)

I already have 90% of the same functionality through Google voice, so I don't expect Google will do much of anything.

Re:It's been done (1, Redundant)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247952)

If anything, this makes me want to disable my facebark as there is too much feature creep and too much Creepyberg. The core functionality has been lost underneath a shitstorm of new features that make me scramble for the options settings to turn the fuckerbergs off. WTF. Why not do the core functionality and let ME decide if I want to use the new GoogleWave... er, facebook wave? Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.

The only spam I ever get on my one clean gmail account IS from a facebook invite, and not the one I ended up signing up with. From day one, FB has been a threat. Use at your own risk, Saddos!

Meh (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247640)

These two are going to fight over users, or rather users' personal data? There's enough users and marketing companies to go around. Both of them will prosper by selling out their users. This world is big enough for both of them.

Re:Meh (5, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248010)

Correction.

One company just directs ads to you. They serve the ads directly and they don't hand over your private data.

The other company routinely changes privacy policies every couple months so you don't know they're exposing and selling your data after you repeatedly told them you don't want them doing that.

Re:Meh (1)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248574)

Yeah I'd rather have a @gmail.com and actually TELL that to someone than to make a @facebook.com and tell that to someone.

I admit I have a facebook account (along with apparently all the rest of the world) but I don't actually brag about it.

It just isn't professional. Neither is @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com and certainly not @aol.com. @gmail.com is semi-professional yet I do have my own domains which I would put on a business card.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248928)

Zuckerberg dilutes Eduardo's shares so they become worthless. Facebook dilutes your privacy ...

Is it worse than Google consuming all your data so that it becomes a commodity to trade for ads?

"Facebook's new messaging system"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247726)

Is this (like "Places") another one of those big Facebook "features" that you have to live in the US to see/use?

I'm from Canada and I don't see any visible changes to the messaging system whatsoever... and Places was launched back in the summer and yet there's no sign of it either... so I anticipate we'll see these features approximately.... never?

-AC

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247766)

Is this (like "Places") another one of those big Facebook "features" that you have to live in the US to see/use?

I'm from Canada and I don't see any visible changes to the messaging system whatsoever... and Places was launched back in the summer and yet there's no sign of it either... so I anticipate we'll see these features approximately.... never?

-AC

Hard to say. Google usually rolls out new services here in the U.S. first (think of us as one giant beta test site) before bringing them to other countries. I don't know much about Facebook in that regard, however.

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248070)

Consider yourself lucky! Here in the USandAs we have to put up with corporations getting their way, until something bad happens, then we get consumer protection as an afterthought. In your case, FB is unable to spring new privacy problems, I mean new "features," on you because your government probably has some good protections in place to thwart the FaceBook Corporation from exporting stupidity.

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248290)

I still do not understand why you would care. I mean it is not like people with brains and some self respect use facebook. Let them do whatever they want to idiots.

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248352)

This isn't true at all. Our 'Privacy Commissioner' confronted FB last year, but that got us no where. They still sell and make our personal data available to anyone who buys it. Personally, I think somehow they staged the whole report to make it look like officials are taking care of business. The changes that the canadian government worked with FB to make were those dumb privacy controls that are available in every country. They are complicated and constantly changing and are rarely understood by people. Thanks for that Canadian government.. i guess?

The real reason is probably more technical than political.

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248506)

Who cares, it's facebook. Personally, I'm still pissed that Google sent me an invite to Google Voice when it was still in beta, only to then tell me that it wasn't available for Canadian residents. I was like a kid on Christas morning, eagerly tearing into a humongous, gorgeously wrapped gift, only to discover it contained 2 croutons and a pair of dirty socks. Thanks a lot, assholes!

Re:"Facebook's new messaging system"? (1)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248970)

I'm from Canada and I don't see any visible changes to the messaging system whatsoever... and Places was launched back in the summer and yet there's no sign of it either... so I anticipate we'll see these features approximately.... never?

The new messaging system is being deployed by invite only. And I'm in the U.S. and I've never seen Places either.

what ever happened to good old email? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34247748)

You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?

I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.

Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.

What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (3, Interesting)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247834)

You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?

I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.

Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.

What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"

I don't have an answer, other than the fact that these services are "free" and whatever downsides there are to these technologies, most people seem blissfully unaware of them. I'm on your side though: I've run my own mail server since before the Internet went public (I ran a decent BBS at one point, and was a hub for a number of mail networks.) When I first got online with the Internet, my first thought was to do the same for my own mail. I saw (and still) see no reason to let my mail pass through anyone else's servers if I don't have to. I wouldn't want my snail mail pawed over by a corporation looking to sell "targeted" junk mail either.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248124)

That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248218)

That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.

Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server (I don't use my ISP's mail services in either direction.)

Now, my hosting service allows me to set their MX records to point directly to my server: incoming mail doesn't ever get stored on their server. The remote host does a domain lookup, connects to the host company's server and gets the MX record, which points directly to my server and connects to it. It also means that I don't have to poll anyone's server for my mail.

It's the best I can do, but it's better than nothing.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248588)

Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server

Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248842)

Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server

Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.

It will go through a number of routers, certainly. But that's not the same thing as saying it will be stored on a number of servers.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248348)

As always, the universal solution is end-to-end encryption.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248864)

As always, the universal solution is end-to-end encryption.

No question there, so long as your country's legal system permits it.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (4, Funny)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248130)

We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time.

Yeah, 1720 was when IP over Avian Carriers was invented, though it took that one 270 years of use to even get put into a written standard.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248214)

Why on earth would people give that up?

Because the were told to and they are stupid enough to believe it. Case closed.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248296)

No kidding. My ISP, with whom I've been doing business for 15 years, decided without any input from customers to outsource their email to gmail. My email address is the same as ever, but it's done through gmail. I sent a complaint, never got an answer.

I don't have a great feeling about Google, but I have a very bad feeling about Facebook. I actually made an account just to see what it was all about, and after a couple of weeks pulled the plug - just too busy, and creepy. I have an actual life, and feel no need to create some faux "community" of people I vaguely know or who vaguely know people that I vaguely know.

But I have no choice with my email, and it pisses me off.

Re:what ever happened to good old email? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34249060)

And that's why having your own domain is important. You could simply switch providers without changing your address.

How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (5, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247800)

Google has always done a really, really good job at keeping spam out of my actual inbox. I have had a gmail account for an awfully long time, and the amount of spam that has made it into my inbox is miniscule.

Facebook, on the other hand, makes it a point to spam you with as much crap as possible. What use will a facebook.com mail account be when it is just choked with messages about virtual cows, virtual gifts, virtual sit-ins against and / or for just about everything, etc.

Google is a notorious marketer, but I don't fear them in the same way that I fear facebook. Google promises not to use the information they collect to personally identify you. Facebook already has your personal identification. What do you think that little prick Zuckerberg is going to do with it?

Let's ask Zuck himself:

SLASHDOT: so have you decided what you are going to do about the users?
ZUCK: yea i'm going to fuck them
ZUCK: probably in the ear
ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at internets
ZUCK: just ask
ZUCK: i have over 400000000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one?
ZUCK: people just submitted it
ZUCK: i don't know why
ZUCK: they "trust me"
ZUCK: dumb fucks

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248038)

I agree. These are 2 different beasts. One got money through selling themselves out to spam, and one made money by, uh, selling themselves out and letting spam all over their search engine.

I guess the only difference is that Google is not passing my information around to their spam buddies, which I appreciate. With Google, it is much easier to keep my information private. Sure, there are profile settings within Facebook, but I have no clue what zuckerberg has in store for my personal information itself

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (3, Informative)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248178)

Well, the point is that Zuck himself has admitted that he thinks I am a dumb fuck for trusting him. He has gone on the record and said that he doesn't believe in privacy on the internet anyway.

He considers me a dumb fuck for even getting a facebook account in the first place, for giving him that information. Unfortunately like many people here, I was sort of roped into it by my family. They think it's awfully convenient and just think I'm a tool for suggesting that facebook might not be ultimately a good thing for the world. "Oh but I can keep up with all the people I never bothered to keep up with." Whoopee, but you can see the attraction there for some folks.

Hell, I know one girl who accepts friend requests from anybody, and posts a lot of suggestive photos of herself. She thinks it's all in fun, but I think she should be *very* afraid of that sort of interaction with thousands of random strangers.

My other buddy did facebook correctly. He used part of his real last name for his first name, made up a fictional last name, and posts nothing.

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248306)

On Facebook, I posted my real name and my gmail address. Outside of that, I used it some for posts (no images; I'm sure they'll revert to claiming ownership again some day) when I first got it, now it's basically quiet. I have the privacy dialed back pretty far, for whatever good that does, and I've given nothing more than my real name and gmail address still to this day. Friends can find me. That's all I wanted.

I'm just waiting now for a distributed system and open protocols to break down the walled garden. If Google would push that (as they pushed XMPP and federation with GTalk) then I think the momentum would help. As for Facebook, you know they WON'T push that kind of thing EVER. That's why I'm more likely to leave data with Google. At least they've shown evidence of a modicum of respect for privacy and open standards.

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1)

drcheap (1897540) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248582)

My other buddy did facebook correctly. He used part of his real last name for his first name, made up a fictional last name, and posts nothing.

How is that the "correct" way to use it? What benefit does he get out of having that bogus account that sits idle?

To me, the correct usage is complete non-usage -- as in not even signing up.

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1)

tayhimself (791184) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248704)

Hasn't Eric Schmidt done the same at Google?

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248788)

That's not doing Facebook correctly. That's NOT doing Facebook. Why did he bother getting an account?

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1)

chowdahhead (1618447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248544)

My ISP has always had poor spam filtering, such that I had to use my email client's message rules to keep my inbox clean. Now I use Gmail to pull email from my ISP and it does a very good job of weeding out the mess.

Re:How about some V14GR4 in your facebook? (1)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248206)

Yipe! With all that money, he can't hire PR staff to deal with interviews like this?

Oh for mod points... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248514)

That interview joke apart, the points parent poster makes are right on.

Facebook (2, Insightful)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247814)

I'm not facebook's biggest fan... I'm forced to use it more and more because of friends and family but if someone truly did consolidate IM, email, SMS, calling, voicemail and whatever else in a meaningful, easy to access way I'd be completely on board. Google is getting close but I still have to have two or three tabs open and some of it feels very tacked on. IM'ing in gmail for instance. I'd love to get a notification for any of them through the same system and a simple way to answer all of them back, too!

Re:Facebook (1)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247950)

I've already consolidated all of this .. into email or IM onto my phone! Whenever I get any sort of message on several platforms, I get sent an email and both my desktop client and phone suck it all done so I can read it. The emails contain links so I can reply if it was on a message board somewhere.

That includes voicemail.....Vonage has had voicemail transcription for years. I can read it or listen to it, and then call that person back if I choose to.

So ..what's the problem that facebook is trying to solve .. beyond lining their own pockets with more advertising dollars, and filing their database with more data to mine.

Re:Facebook (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248146)

No, you get notified for most of your services on your phone. I'm talking about a single unified interface for any of these services that can be answered through the same interface, both on a phone and desktop! The same way the pigeon IM client seamlessly consolidates multiple different IM protocols. Once the different protocols are set up, the user doesn't have to care which IM service they just got messaged from. Why not consolidate email, SMS, voice message and IM the same way?

Re:Facebook (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248760)

Are sure you actually want this? The thing is, the isolation of these services serves a useful purpose. They all carry their own social context and rules.

Email - probably not urgent, but get back to me in 24 - 48 hours please. Might have useful attachments, etc, handy for archiving stuff

IM - probably not urgent but handy if you can respond in real time for a quick chat

SMS - short and sweet, could be urgent or time sensitive, check it out as soon as you can, a one word response will quite possibly do. Don't count on it as an archive.

Having all these things merged would destroy some of the qualities that make them useful.

Re:Facebook (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34249030)

That's actually a really good point. For the most part I follow those social rules. However, if the communication format changes you can change the social rules. You don't have to change everyone's behavior just your own. For instance, if I IM some of my contacts they respond when it's convenient and I just accept that and some others IM me back almost immediately 90% of the time or at least say hold on I'm busy I'll get back to you. I played the game second life for a short time and I remember there was this one guy that only spoke when he felt like it. He just showed up, never said hi or good-bye. Even though some people thought he was rude most people just accepted that that was how he communicated. It may have helped that he was super smart and interesting when he did decide to talk.

Re:Facebook (1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248008)

I'm forced to use it more and more because of friends and family

Really? Forced? They hold a gun to your head and say 'sign into facebook right now and add me as a friend or I'll kill you'? I mean, that would be forcing you to do it.

You choosing to play the attention whoring game that is facebook and saying you're are 'forced' is just a cop out.

If your friends and family can't be bothered to contact you directly, they aren't your friends, they are just people you know.

You'll find GMail and its integrated inbox a lot more useful when you stop trying to use a web based client for IM and email. Web based is useful when you're away from your properly configured computers, but to use it every day shows you really aren't that heavy of a user.

Re:Facebook (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248162)

Well, to be fair, I can't imagine anybody volunteering to join Facebook. Seems like the same sort of people that go to the airport just for the free molestation.

Re:Facebook (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248412)

I respect your hardline attitude about the matter, you remind me or Rorschach from the Watchmen. I guess I'm just not prepared to tell my friends "Go fuck yourself. If you won't communicate in the way that *I* want, I'm not your friend!" Also, I'm a pretty heavy IM and email user. Your post shows that you have zero grasp of the important concept that different people like to do things different ways. (And that you seem like kind of an a-hole. But don't let that get you down, lots of important, neat people are aholes! :)

Re:Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248872)

Grandma can get on facebook to see pictures of my kid from the other side of the continent. Grandmas old juno email address can't hold more than 3 images without going over it's space limit.

Gmail is great, and has a lot of great features. Now if only you could convince everyone in the world to use it when most of my family is non-technical and their email addresses end with @comcast, @charter, @att, or @juno. Facebook is their only portal so that's why I use it, and that is their power. They sucked up a lot of non-technical users that learn something once and refuse to budge.

Re:Facebook (1)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248336)

You are not forced to use Facebook at all.

Re:Facebook (1)

falldeaf (968657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248460)

I was using it as an expression, no there's no one standing next to me and holding a gun to my head, you're right. But just like my cell phone, facebook brings good and bad things into my life. So I was lamenting the bad parts in my post. Way to be too literal. :)

We are all served (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247816)

We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.

FTFY: We are all served more ads by Google by having everybody in the world get online.

Are you using Facebook? (1)

Cruciform (42896) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247826)

Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook?
I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?

Re:Are you using Facebook? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247886)

Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook? I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?

Not me. My idea of a "social network" is emailing, texting and phone calling my circle of friends and acquaintances.

Re:Are you using Facebook? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247902)

I use it. I move from project to project and meet new people along the way. We used to use LinkedIn but Facebook just sort of won, probably because people have fun posting funny stories.

I've found work that was as have a number of my colleagues. I've had a few good laughs along the way, too.

Re:Are you using Facebook? (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248052)

irc on our own private server with ircstats [humdi.net] .

I'm in favor of this Facebook email thing. gmail / buzz always had more interesting users, and this will keep a lot of the chaff away from the wheat :-P

Also, true story: my grandmother calls me at a random airport to notify me that I might be on the same flight as my father's cousin. Haven't had a social networking thingie deliver that kind of notification yet.

Re:Are you using Facebook? (1)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248454)

Ah that is scary indeed to think about. What would the world be like if grandma's were replaced by corporate networks?

Re:Are you using Facebook? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248422)

Anyone who attended school in the past decade or so and actually made some friends there. I don't mean to be insulting, but rather to say that not everyone a slashdotter knows is also a slashdotter. Ten years ago that meant AIM instead of IRC, now it means Facebook.

Why would google care? (1)

peacefinder (469349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247862)

This appears to be a re-hash of Google Wave, which the big G already abandoned.

Re:Why would google care? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248062)

Except far fewer features than Google Wave, it is a closed service, and Facebook will own all your private data. But otherwise it is just the same.

Re:Why would google care? (1)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248710)

Google should care....because of the huge boost this gives to Microsoft Office Online. Millions of users...instantly.

He left out one thing.. (1)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247864)

The market will grow but you need an e-mail to sign up at Facebook, and as such, some Facebook users will migrate from Gmail to Facebook mail. Therefore, the market is growing but Facebook will steal more than the growth that Eric is referring to.

Work access. (1)

Cuznmark1 (1163359) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247900)

Well I can still access Gmail from work.. Facebook.. not so much..

Uh... how does it expand the market? (1)

Seor Jojoba (519752) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247914)

Have we not yet reached a point where everyone that wants and is infrastructurally able to have access to e-mail, has got it? Are there a bunch of people that Google hasn't reached yet? Better start another GMail invite campaign, I guess.

Re:Uh... how does it expand the market? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248196)

The reason for the invites was a combination of building a buzz and not wanting to swamp the infrastructure before it had fully stabilized. The only reason to start another invite campaign would be to have people spamming their friends. Probably not the sort of buzz that Google wants or needs.

Re:Uh... how does it expand the market? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248448)

People in their middle-ages on up have a pretty low adoption rate, I find. They got on with some ISP 10-15 years ago, and haven't looked back, except to change their ISP and thus the email. Webmail is still foreign to a lot of people.

Where is this e-mail everyone's talking about? (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247916)

I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.

I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.

Are they enabling it on a per-user basis and skipping those of us who log into facebook less often than once in an hour?

Ah, tech reporters, will they ever tire of blowing up nonsense into "world-shaking" pseudo-news. This one is worse than Segway and iStuff combined.

Re:Where is this e-mail everyone's talking about? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248226)

It's probably a limited roll out. Often times they do it in waves so that they can avoid hosing a lot of people if there's something which made it through the QA which shouldn't have. It's also a lot easier on the infrastructure.

Re:Where is this e-mail everyone's talking about? (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248584)

That was not what the news and announcements implied though. That shows how much reason is there to trust Facebook with your email.

/ Google too.

Re:Where is this e-mail everyone's talking about? (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248242)

I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.

I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.

To be fair, the "same useless shit" in facebook is far superior to the messaging system in Slashdot, which consists of looking up your friend's recent posts list, clicking one at random, then making an off-topic public reply.

Re:Where is this e-mail everyone's talking about? (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248556)

To be fair, Slashdot doesn't claim to be the next Internet.

nice to see some warring tactics. (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34247990)

I want google to really come out with something new that will again change the web as we know it, i think they need to review what everyone is doing and focus on something that will integrate with it, so if everyone was masturbating, develop a masturbator helper, if everyone is emailing joke emails, develop a special joke email format that auto adds a signature which is the joke of the day...

keep facebook on their toes.

Re:nice to see some warring tactics. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248248)

I bet it's privacy. Nobody would see that coming.

Re:nice to see some warring tactics. (1)

flowwolf (1824892) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248552)

You can't do what is already done if you want to change the face of things as we know it. Before google, everyone was spending as much time as they could in their favorite portals. Google decided people should spend less time searching the web. This was contrary to what was being observed. They had a vision that was unseen so far. This is what real disrupting technology is. Not some trivial application

I can't wait for them to fully unload google voice on the world. TV could have a chance but i'm not impressed yet. Instant has changed the way I search dramatically already. They are constantly disrupting the market and this is what I love about them

no thanks... (1)

bbqpope (860883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248004)

I don't see it. I use facebook, but anymore I have limited what I share and post there. I have been getting a kick out of being friends with people I see. I used to check facebook a lot, but anymore it's kinda dull.

Several problems (3, Interesting)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248066)

First, I have all kinds of convergence on GMail and frankly, don't care for it. In fact I rarely use the web client. I'm a throwback geek, what can I say. I do use the texting feature when I can't text from area with no coverage.

The big problem Facebook has right now is credibility. Given the myriad of accounts that are hijacked daily, the privacy issues, I can think of no other company I want my data to be on less than Facebook. Except maybe Microsoft but I like piling on Microsoft. :)

From what I can tell, it would take years for FB to get spam under control because they don't even have it under control on their site now. One reason I'm using GMail is because no other online email app rejects spam better.

Facebook can't rely on pretty colors and whirly thingies. They need to get their act together before branching out. Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.

Re:Several problems (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248458)

Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.

Also, they held the desktop OS monopoly back then too. Facebook doesn't exactly have a social networking monopoly, although they are better poised to achieve one than any other company. I think of it like the situation Microsoft was in back in 1982.

Re:Several problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34249002)

Actually, Fastmail probably does a better job at spam control than anyone. And, if you go with a paid account, you can ratchet down the controls even further with sieve scripts. I don't know about you, but I'm a geek, and I like as much control over my environment as possible short of running my own mail server, which is a colossal PITA BTW.

Perfectly Secure (1)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248068)

I am confident that everyone will switch over in droves to ensure the security of their online communications. No doubt FB offers only the top most level of security with their email. Guaranteeing that they will never harvest data from it or sell/divulge your most intimate of secrets.

Re:Perfectly Secure (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248384)

I can see this... but all parties would have to have PGP Desktop, or a similar utility to encrypt/decrypt messages, as well as a pre-established WOT.

This comes to mind something... Perhaps combine Facebook and Hushmail? Result, every object (status update, message) is encrypted with its own key, and the key be decryptable by users, groups of users, or everyone. This way, a break in, or a goof in the backend application wouldn't reveal any information that has not been configured to reveal unless the key storage/decryption system was massively smashed. It would not be completely secure, and definitely not from governments (most likely they would want a recovery key), but it would keep data well under wraps from almost anything else.

Oh joy. (1)

gklinger (571901) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248148)

A solution I don't want to a problem I don't have from a company I don't trust. Great.

Re:Oh joy. (1)

mpfife (655916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248314)

And just like an Apple product - everyone will buy and use anyway.

Google? (3, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248312)

Facebook's new messaging system may not be a Gmail killer

Here's an interesting graphic that surprised me. U.S. Internet traffic to Web-based email clients [zdnet.com]

#1 Yahoo - 72.8 million

#2 Hotmail - 48.5 million

#3 GMail - 25.1 million

Re:Google? (2, Interesting)

pnuema (523776) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248472)

You forget - Yahoo is the default email address for anyone who uses AT&T (formerly Southwestern Bell) as an ISP. No one else gets that kind of subscriber boost.

Re:Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248638)

25.1 million what? The suspense is killing me...

Google's "nightmare scenario"... (4, Insightful)

DdJ (10790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248424)

If I understand the presentation I saw, one of the things this Facebook tool will have going for it is, it'll be an IMAP client. You can punch in the details of your mail server, and use it as webmail for that service. Like, embed SquirrelMail in Facebook.

If Facebook can convince users to punch in the details for GMail's IMAP server, reading their GMail mail via Facebook instead of the GMail web interface, then Google runs the mail infrastructure, but Facebook gets the ad impressions. Remember, if you access GMail via IMAP, you see no ads at all. (I use GMail via IMAP, from several desktop and handheld IMAP clients.) If that started to happen in any volume, I bet Google would wake up and notice.

Re:Google's "nightmare scenario"... (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248678)

Until Google decides to block Facebook IMAP harvesters for the same reason they did with the address book sync squabble. If facebook integrates mail from Google/others, why aren't facebook messaging services (send and receive) available from external sources?

Google doesn't JUST make money off the presentation of ads in their web interface.
1. They scrape the data to better utilize advertising to you when you're logged into other Google services
2. The analysis of your email/etc could allow for better heuristics to detect interesting patterns (I'm thinking about things like Goog411 as an example of this)
3. They could trivially put a rider on email provided through IMAP for any ad that they would normally host through the web page (with slight complications on the AdSense billing side, but not unmanageable)

For me, I rarely open my web mail tools anymore because my Android phone always notifies me of incoming email almost instantly. I usually just use the web interface of GMail to type out large emails that are unmanageable from the phone, or when I'm hunting for some old mail.

I hate convergence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248442)

I don't give a fuck about receiving my email in text messages.
Convergence is not fucking revolutionary. It's what you do when you can't think up something better.

trust my private and professional mail with Zuck ? (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248478)

hahahahahaha.

sorry, no dice. zuck is trustworthy and reliable for me as much as ... well, brutus maybe ...

Nothing new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248486)

Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.
—Jamie Zawinski

Except in this case, it's a web app instead of a program...

I already have convergence (4, Insightful)

Is0m0rph (819726) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248600)

It's called an Android phone.

Google flinch? (1)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248820)

Google doesn't flinch.

Sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248840)

I'm not letting my e-mail within 5 cybermiles of Facebook and their privacy policy.

unintended consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34248870)

Ahhhh, the unintended consequences. So, how are facebook users going to like all the spam they get?

Also, potential employers will get a golden ticket. Essentially, a short path to finding a prospective employees embarassing photos. Titties!

I don't see the issue... (4, Insightful)

Mysticalfruit (533341) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248960)

Realize who this service is aimed at... When these people joined facebook they gladly handed over passwords for all their email accounts and instant messaging services. Now all this stuff is going to be done in house.

At this point, if you've used facebook and you haven't been completely neurotic about what you're exposing, they've got a very good handle on who you are, who your friends are, what's in your inbox and what's in your friends inbox.

Those of us, who want to keep our privacy won't use this service. That other group of people have already lost their privacy, they just haven't realized it yet.

Blackberry (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34248966)

my blackberry already merges my SMS, email, facebook and IM messages.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?