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!

The Case Against Gmail

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the but-it's-very-convenient dept.

Communications 435

stry_cat writes "Ed Bot makes the case against Gmail: 'Gmail was a breath of fresh air when it debuted. But this onetime alternative is showing signs that it's past its prime, especially if you want to use the service with a third-party client. That's the way Google wants it, which is why I've given up on Gmail after almost a decade.' Personally, I've always thought it odd that no other email provider ever adopted Gmails "search not sort" mentality. I've been a Gmail user since you needed an invitation to get an account. However Gmail has been steadily moving towards a more traditional email experience. Plus there's the iGoogle disaster that got me looking into alternatives to everything Google."

cancel ×

435 comments

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

First Post (-1, Troll)

OutOnARock (935713) | about 9 months ago | (#45284687)

yeah?

iGoogle Disaster (5, Funny)

stewsters (1406737) | about 9 months ago | (#45284699)

The iGoogleocolypse?

Re:iGoogle Disaster (5, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45284805)

My 70 year old mother lamented iGoogle going away too. Take that for whatever it's worth.

iGoogle Disaster was overblown (3, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 9 months ago | (#45284927)

I knew exactly one person who used it, it simply wasn't a popular feature, even if it was the homepage on some Gateway PCs.

Sadly, many people don't realize that just because a web feature exists and works now, doesn't mean that it can be considered permanent. Auditing for security, proper functioning in the latest browsers, and other general maintenance still cost money. Google at least gives some notice, not all providers can do so.

Re:iGoogle Disaster was overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285235)

Google at least gives some notice, not all providers care about their users enough to bother finding out how easy a little planning can be.

Fixed that for you.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 9 months ago | (#45285181)

I, too, am lamenting the coming demise of iGoogle and I am only 65!
However, I don't consider it a disaster... more like a shoulder shrug.
I think I can survive without it.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285185)

My 70 year old mother

I want to part those wrinkled old meat curtains and brush out any cobwebs i find and lick her clit until she squals. Think she would let me?

Re:iGoogle Disaster (4, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about 9 months ago | (#45285245)

Yes, it's totally bullshit that you would want to have a single page with all your email, news, weather, and everything else, launching from the start of your browser session. It's idiocy only pursued by the elderly to want to look at one page to get instantly up to date on everything.

I'm sorry that iGoogle was your singularity.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (5, Funny)

kav2k (1545689) | about 9 months ago | (#45285279)

Very relevant: http://xkcd.com/1172/ [xkcd.com]

Re:iGoogle Disaster (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284827)

stry_cat knows hyperbole. "Disaster"? Seriously? I used iGoogle for years. Then Google said "it'll be going away in year." So, I found an alternative. Disaster averted.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 9 months ago | (#45284859)

This and Google Reader. When Google Reader was cancelled, I switched to Tiny TIny RSS, and I have to say that I find it as good, if not better than Google Reader. Except that I mostly only use it on my phone. The web UI is great, but I find it quite slow, and that detracts from it's usefulness. If there's a good free alternative to Google Reader that you can host yourself, I haven't found it yet. I think GMail is the only cloud service that I really depend on for anything remotely important. Most of the stuff that the web hosting companies offer, like SquirrelMail is just atrocious. My provider (dreamhost) actually recommends that you use GMail for domains, because the other options are so deplorable.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45284965)

The iGoogleocolypse?

It's Ed Bott - what else did you expect? I don't even have to RTFA, and I can tell you that he's likely pimping Outlook.com in that same article as hard as he friggin' can. It's not so much a critical review of GMail, as it is a webvertisement for Outlook.com disguised as a critical review.

GMail isn't exactly sliced bread (I use it POP3-style mostly), but it isn't as horrid as he makes it out to be, either. Think about this for a moment: MSFT's lead professional knob-slobberer badmouths a MSFT product's biggest competitor - so why is this even news?

Re:iGoogle Disaster (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 9 months ago | (#45285267)

I apparently don't pay as much attention to specific writers as you do, maybe other people don't either? For what it's worth, from the article:

Over the past couple of years, though, as Microsoft improved its once-neglected Hotmail service, I moved back. First to an @live.com address, then to an @outlook.com address, and finally to a custom domain that's attached to the Outlook.com servers. (See this post for instructions on how to add your own custom domain to Outlook.com for free.)

Your prediction bearing out so perfectly actually gave me a bit of a chuckle (assuming it was a prediction of course).

Re:iGoogle Disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285273)

Think about this for a moment: MSFT's lead professional knob-slobberer badmouths a MSFT product's biggest competitor - so why is this even news?

Because people like you can't resist clicking "Read more..." to come and post about it, driving up Slashdot's page views. That's why.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285255)

Check out http://www.ighome.com/
I'm not affiliated with them at all. It's the closest thing to an actual substitute that I've seen so far.
They even let you import your old settings from iGoogle.

Just a thought.

Re:iGoogle Disaster (0)

poetmatt (793785) | about 9 months ago | (#45285299)

No, it's called "the irrelevance".
As in, why does anyone care?
This is as stupid an article as the comments themselves.

Email is as standard as it has always been. Nobody should be using or relying on email.

So why *don't* other mail readers use labels? (4, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 9 months ago | (#45284719)

And why hasn't IMAP been extended to support them properly?

What? (4, Insightful)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about 9 months ago | (#45284725)

Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!

Re:What? (2)

alen (225700) | about 9 months ago | (#45284829)

no more activesync support on ios and the ios gmail app doesn't share contacts with the rest of the iphone as far as i can tell

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284973)

Sounds like a problem with ios....

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285031)

Sounds more like an iOS problem than a GMail problem

Re:What? (1)

slaker (53818) | about 9 months ago | (#45285047)

There's an official Gmail client for iOS if you really, REALLY need push updates.
Does the iOS mail client not do IMAP push?

Re:What? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45285153)

no more activesync support on ios

Wait, wait, wait... let me see if I understand you here:

Are you saying that you cannot get your inbound (or outbound) GMail pushed through an exchange server to/from GMail and your iPhone?

May want to be a bit more specific, boyo. :)

Re:What? (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 9 months ago | (#45285163)

Don't you feel that you're taking the Google boycott a bit far if you won't even search for how to sync contacts. [google.com]

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284831)

Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!

Yup - and to back that up - you can use Thunderbird.
I use an old version of Thunderbird at that - version 2.0.0.24 to be exact.

Works very very well.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285169)

Gmail works great as a mail server for Thunderbird, I just dislike ever having to use Gmail's web interface when I'm away from my computers.

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284845)

Yeah... I'm currently getting all of my gmail through outlook. It doesn't get much more 3rd party than that.

Re:What? (2)

slaker (53818) | about 9 months ago | (#45284871)

I don't understand the problem either. Gmail works fine with any IMAP client I care to configure. IMAP itself has some weirdness around how clients interact with various folders, but that's not Gmail's fault.

I really don't like Gmail because of a distaste for threaded comment view (yes, I know I can turn it off on the web, but not in the Android client), but as someone who has every non-spam e-mail I've received since 1993 sitting in my inbox I can say that it performs just fine in spite of that and I can access it anywhere, which is the biggest single reason to stick with it.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284939)

The only difficulty I had when attempting to use Gmail with a third party client is that there are simply no third party clients which can properly handle the sheer volume of mail in my inbox. That isn't exactly Google's fault.

Also, all the stuff Google shut down was rubbish and deserved it.

Re:What? (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 9 months ago | (#45284941)

Well, IMAP lacks some of the features you find in Exchange (but picks up a few over POP3), but that's not client side. I remember Pine worked okay with IMAP and I suspect that any clients developed later than that should be able to handle it fine (i.e. anything that's a viable client).

Re:What? (1)

armanox (826486) | about 9 months ago | (#45284943)

Indeed. I've got gmail connected to pine running on IRIX 6.5.

Re:What? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45285009)

Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!

Yea, this.

Thunderbird on my PCs, K9 Mail on my Android machines. Nary a problem to be found.

Re:What? (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 9 months ago | (#45285035)

I don't understand his problem either. I recently upgraded to Mavericks and haven't noticed any issue with iCal or Apple Mail using my GMail account.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 9 months ago | (#45285043)

In the summary? Because TFA was.

Despite Google's lofty rhetoric about open standards, the Gmail protocols are undocumented and not available for licensing. Apps can perform a limited set of interactions with Gmail via its API, but if you want to build a communications app that connects directly to Gmail, you have to use either IMAP or (shudder) POP. Either way, you get a severely compromised experience. And neither configuration gives you access to calendars and contacts.

I've never tried to build yet another e-mail program using Gmail, but there are at least dozens out there for iOS and android, the ones I've used seem to work just great, so I'm inclined to think this is an overstatement.

Also

The biggest problem with getting Gmail to work with third-party clients is that it doesn't use the same filing system they do.

I'm guessing you can actually configure gmail to work that way. I'm also skeptical that there aren't clients out there that work with one of the most popular e-mail services out there. Specifically because I use some of them and they do actually work fine.

He tries to generalize it, but it seems like he's talking about outlook specifically not working with gmail. Maybe he should try not using outlook? I dunno. Maybe that's just me. I hate outlook, but my work seems to love it. I have to forward my work e-mail to a gmail account to use it on anything besides outlook.

Re:What? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 9 months ago | (#45285227)

Difficult to use with a third-party client? Really??? Please be more specific and elaborate cause i always had the opposite impression!

Outlook 2013 with Google Apps Sync is now a royal PITA. It works fine with the VLA office edition, but not the Click-to-Run. (which is how the majority of small business and soho's get outlook). The work around is is to install the VLA (technet or torrent etc), install google apps sync and setup the profile, install click to run, remove the vla version, possibly repair the click-to-run version, and then activate the click-to-run version.

Its unclear to me why it can't work with office 2013 home and business etc, without jumping through those hoops.

As for IMAP, I know people who run into the imap connection limit pretty quickly with gmail ... between desktop, laptop, tablet, and smartphone. That gets them the too many simultaneous connections error, and then it fails. I know with apple mail, for example, instead of reporting a proper error it gives some generic login error message and prompts for the gmail password when this happens -- which is worse by far than just not getting the mail for a bit. Quitting mail, waiting a while and then trying again is a very UGLY workaround.

I'm not sure if the maximum IMAP connections a given client uses is easily configured.

As for pop3... its pop3... few people really want to use it. Local stored mail, with no sync is an ugly mess. And even grandma who only uses mail from one desktop is better off without pop3 because at least with imap she doesn't lose her mail when the computer inevitably dies.

one more thing.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284731)

you forgot the US Government spying. until our IT giants tell the US government that they are leaving the united states if they don't stop, there is no reason to continue to freely use their service when an alternative is available.

who cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284737)

Optimizing my email experience is near the bottom of my priority list these days. Just give me something that is good enough. There is no need to build a complex personal philosophy on the subject.

Re:who cares? (2)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 9 months ago | (#45284911)

Optimizing my email experience is near the bottom of my priority list these days. Just give me something that is good enough. There is no need to build a complex personal philosophy on the subject.

Yeah I'm with you. People still use email for anything other than verifying forum accounts and retrieving forgotten passwords? There are so many faster and easier ways to communicate. Can't say I trust the security of most of these non-email methods, but that's a different subject.

I couldn't even tell you the last time I received an email from a PERSON, pretty much everything in my inbox was generated by another computer.

Quickly on the iGoogle thing: iGoogle taught me something: Do not rely on any Google service, gimmick or application. Except maybe their search engine. Google is becoming notorious for yanking the rug out from under people relying on their stuff. I'll pass on that, I'll just find alternatives that seem to like sticking around.

Re:who cares? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45285277)

Yeah I'm with you. People still use email for anything other than verifying forum accounts and retrieving forgotten passwords? There are so many faster and easier ways to communicate.

Unfortunately, it's still the # thing at work... but then, if your company is using only public GMail accounts for work, there's something distinctly wrong with your company.

Can't say I trust the security of most of these non-email methods, but that's a different subject.

Heh - SMTP ain't so secure either.

(...yes, I know about TLS and various 3rd-party SecureMail methods, but they're either unused or hellishly clumsy when communicating with external entities - you pick.)

Re:who cares? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 9 months ago | (#45285291)

I use email for a lot of stuff (I avoid "social" sites entirely), and I hate continuing "improvements" to email clients - both web and otherwise. I loved gmail when it was new, and had the same "simple, clean" UI approach as the search page. Now it's such a mess that I'm moving to outlook.com, which I've been quite surprised to discover is, well, clean and simple.

Past it? Long past it. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 9 months ago | (#45284751)

Honestly, I've had email systems were far more flexible (Lotus) easier to search (Groupwise) and my email client on my desktop makes GMail look like a laughable cartoon. As far as a free email drop goes, it's fine. As for an enterprise or for managing email, it's not even in the minor league.

Re:Past it? Long past it. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 9 months ago | (#45285287)

How well does Lotus or Groupwise work on your mobile phone? BYOD is the reality of business email these days.

Re:Past it? Long past it. (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45285301)

TBH, a public GMail account is not exactly what you'd want for a professional outfit anyway. Nor would you want a public Outlook.com, Yahoo, or any such other account. I can see (and do see) it being used by individual contractors or freelancers, but otherwise it wasn't really built for the full-blown no-shit enterprise world in the first place.

MORE SPAM ON GMAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284767)

In the last two months or so, I am getting about a dozen target spams per day. It used to be that the best thing about Google was the spam control. Not anymore.

Re:MORE SPAM ON GMAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284839)

With your ALL CAPS subjects, it probably just thinks the spam is from your people. ;p

Re:MORE SPAM ON GMAIL (1)

duke_cheetah2003 (862933) | about 9 months ago | (#45285027)

Just a dozen? At the height of one of my email accounts receiving spam, it was upwards of 500 messages a day. I finally just disabled that account, thought maybe if I left it disabled so everything bounces for a few months, they'd stop. Wrong, even today if I enable that account, it gets hammered.

My other accounts still receive substantial amounts of spam (more then a dozen a day, I think you're getting off pretty lightly!) But, I rarely ever see it. Thankfully popfile is really effective, no matter what they try.

Re:MORE SPAM ON GMAIL (1)

tgd (2822) | about 9 months ago | (#45285197)

Just a dozen? At the height of one of my email accounts receiving spam, it was upwards of 500 messages a day. I finally just disabled that account, thought maybe if I left it disabled so everything bounces for a few months, they'd stop. Wrong, even today if I enable that account, it gets hammered.

My other accounts still receive substantial amounts of spam (more then a dozen a day, I think you're getting off pretty lightly!) But, I rarely ever see it. Thankfully popfile is really effective, no matter what they try.

I get about 2k a day on my gmail account -- but what the GP may mean (and I've noticed, too) is that a LOT more are getting through to the inbox. I used to rarely get any, and in the last few months it probably averages about 40/day. Something has definitely change with their SPAM handling -- either its regressed, or it hasn't kept up with the spammers. (I suspect the former, because I can mark a given e-mail sender as SPAM a hundred times and Google doesn't take the hint...)

IMAP is supported though? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284769)

So I can use a third-party client (Mozilla Thunderbird for one) with my Gmail via IMAP.

I'm weaning myself off of Gmail and Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284797)

I don't like how I've entrusted one company with so much of my data. I don't have a facebook account either.

Going back to using my own hosted mail solution and I'm entirely fine with that.

Re:I'm weaning myself off of Gmail and Google (1)

Defenestrar (1773808) | about 9 months ago | (#45284863)

And how much work is keeping your own host updated and spam filtered? I've thought about doing it before on several occasions (the Raspberry Pi seems like a cheap solution), but I've heard that keeping things smooth for a single account is generally more trouble than it's worth. How much time would you say it takes?

Re:I'm weaning myself off of Gmail and Google (1)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 9 months ago | (#45284957)

Buy domain
Get cheap hosting solution or email only solution
Setup clients and forget about it

That said, it doesn't matter since email is rarely done via PGP and PGP isn't overly secure either (nothing is these days). Honestly, for now, it's a losing battle. Until the email standard is completely re-written and secured properly it won't matter.

Re:I'm weaning myself off of Gmail and Google (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 9 months ago | (#45285123)

I thought about that too. But then decided it was not worth it since everyone I email still uses gmail and - as a result - Google would still get their copy.

cya (1, Interesting)

donnyspi (701349) | about 9 months ago | (#45284807)

kbai!

I'm confused. (1)

patchouly (1755506) | about 9 months ago | (#45284817)

I use Outlook to check my Gmail account (among others). I've never had any issues with it in the past nor currently. Pop in the info and it sets it up automatically. Same thing goes with my iPad, Samsung Aceii Phone and my old Blackberry. Never any issues at all. As with the OP, I've had Gmail since the beginning and I haven't noticed any changes (to be fair, I never check my email with my browser so changes there would have gone unnoticed). I have to wonder what sort of third part programs the author was having trouble with.

Slower loading times lately (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 9 months ago | (#45284835)

Perhaps I've been spoiled by the speed of most Google apps and such, but Gmail has been very slow compared to its peppy-ness just a few months ago. I'll mark stuff in my Junk/Ads folder as read, then want to move on to my Spam folder to delete the stuff, but the app will stop me because it still has "pending requests" on the server. Gmail was a lot more tolerant of me being click-happy before. I'm not sure what changed.

Re:Slower loading times lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285029)

Over the years they've added tons of extra crap to the experience: GoogleTalk, G+, tabs and now a pointless minimized editing window

When it started it was very minimal features but those features were solid, and searching mail was easy and just worked. Then they started lumping junk into the mix, then more junk, then re-skinning the junk to make it look like shiny happy junk.

They haven't really taken features away but the bury the experience through relentless tinkering.

Why does it take multiple clicks to log out? Why can't I have full screen edit? Why is the mobile version SO BAD?

The worst part is trying to voice concerns with the dev team through the support forums, once you get past the Google fluffer brigade you end up being stonewalled by a developer telling you that's how the feature is supposed to work this conversation is over.

The worst part, and the real threat Google presents on the whole as a monopolistic entity is that there aren't a whole lot of options I would use so we're stuck with each other (and I suspect they know it)

Other good paid email providers? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#45284841)

I pay Google to host my business email accounts. I have been thinking there has to be some better alternative - does anyone know of an email provider that would let you have several accounts across a number of domains for a reasonable fee?

This is probably better off as an Ask Slashdot question but I figured as long as people were in the mood to bitch about GMail I would see what other people are using.

Re:Other good paid email providers? (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about 9 months ago | (#45284907)

I'll probably get slapped for this...but there is Office365. If you are a bit smaller, perhaps Zoho would work for you?

meh... MS advert... (5, Interesting)

Mr Krinkle (112489) | about 9 months ago | (#45284847)

So his main issue with gmail....

"It doesn't work with Exchange Active Sync"

And that's google's fault? My guess is that MS stopped allowing it easy access HOPING people would move over to outlook.com (as he did, because he was "getting scroogled" cause we ALL know MS has NEVER used target advertising. etc etc)

he complains that you should be able to easily access it from a browser, or a native app... Ermmmm... Works just fine for me from a browser and from apps on iOS and Android devices for me... (I don't believe in WinMo.. they sucked, they annoyed me, i'll never trust them again...)
Even works fine on Blackberry....

Soooo... "MOVE TO OUTLOOK.COM Don't get Scroogled...." thanks for the look MS... oh yea, use bing.com, it's AWESOME..

Re:meh... MS advert... (1)

tgd (2822) | about 9 months ago | (#45285241)

My guess is that MS stopped allowing it easy access HOPING people would move over to outlook.com (as he did, because he was "getting scroogled" cause we ALL know MS has NEVER used target advertising. etc etc

This is the 21st century. You don't need to guess about MS and Google may have respectively done relative to using ActiveSync ... you could look it up.

I assume you're "guessing" because the answer you want it to be is 180 degrees off the actual answer. Amirite?!

MS shill does not like anything Google, news at 11 (5, Interesting)

silviuc (676999) | about 9 months ago | (#45284867)

Ed Bott has been sucking the Microsoft tit for years and he loves it. But don't believe me, go check his articles up on ZDnet and see just how many of them cover all things Microsoft.

In one of his articles he tells us just how much he loves Outlook.com. Link provided for convenience:
http://www.zdnet.com/why-i-use-outlook-com-for-my-custom-email-accounts-and-how-you-can-too-7000015546/ [zdnet.com]

Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at (5, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 9 months ago | (#45284925)

Ed Bott has been sucking the Microsoft tit for years and he loves it.

I've been using Gmail since the old days when you had to have an invitation, and I've always used a third party email client because Gmail's web-based interface is stupid and pointless. Ed Bott is an idiot and I don't understand how he ever got a job writing for any computer/tech related magazine or website.

Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285065)

Ed Bott is an idiot and I don't understand how he ever got a job writing for any computer/tech related magazine or website.

We are talking about ZDNet right?

Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45285073)

To be fair, I think a lot of us have been getting increasingly dissatisfied with google. I don't like Microsoft, especially since windows 8, and its "we know better than the user" attitude, so I'd rather find another party, but Google has been less and less appealing as a source for anything for years now.

Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285085)

Should've realized that when I saw this was posted by timothy...

Re:MS shill does not like anything Google, news at (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285119)

Wait... Microsoft has tits? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

Of course, with Microsoft's track record, they'll be square, hard, and require special lips in order to interface with their nonstandard nipples. Also, they won't have milk, just raspberry jam, with all of the complications its viscosity would imply.

OK, I've taken this one far enough...

Google's Product (2, Interesting)

GrBear (63712) | about 9 months ago | (#45284891)

I've decided to stop being Google's product after deciding I can't trust them any longer with my information.

I opened a VPS to handle my own email services, dumped my Android devices, switched to Bing and block all Google cookie and scripts in my browser.

The only last remnant I'm having a tough time replacing is YouTube for gaming vlog's.

Re:Google's Product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285037)

yeah because we all know MS won't screw you.

Re:Google's Product (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45285093)

Drop bing, go DuckDuckGo.

faiLzorS.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284893)

Non-fucking-3xistant. are a pathetic were compounded progress. In 1992, suffering *BSD But with Netcraft year contract. FreeBSD weJnt out

Search is Google's answer to everything. (5, Interesting)

plover (150551) | about 9 months ago | (#45284901)

That's a failing of Google. They're the kings of search, so everything should be searchable, right? So they extended that to everything should be searched - always. Want to know who batted third in the fourth game of the World Series? Search for it. Want to know who sent you that email? Search for them. Want to run a program? Search for it.

What they don't acknowledge is that people grow habits. Once we've learned a thing, we can repeat the thing pretty easily. I don't have to "search" for Excel on my PC, I know that if I click down here, then up and over here, I see the little [X~] icon. I don't open the search bar and type Excel. And I never open the search bar and type Excel.

Microsoft, in their traditionally incompetent fashion of misunderstanding their users, decided to mimic Google's unacknowledged mistakes when they came out with Windows 8. (Unity, of course, had beaten them to the punch in incompetence, as they so often do.) Apple figured it out better when they tied search to the home screen on the iPhones, but wisely kept it out of sight. Most people drag their two-dozen useful icons to the first few pages of their iPhone, and use search only when they've forgotten which folder they hid their AnimeTube player in.

Perhaps the reason GMail (beta) remained beta for so long was that they were running experiments on people. Maybe they wanted to see if people would ever adapt to their notions of "search". And maybe they finally tallied up the results, and recognized how stupid they were to believe it in the first place.

Re:Search is Google's answer to everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285099)

They're the kings of search, and now they are abusing that power. Try searching the app store based on the permissions required by an app. (Really, try it.) Google doesn't want you to search this way. They even blacklisted APEFS, which implemented this functionality.

Re:Search is Google's answer to everything. (1)

CrankyFool (680025) | about 9 months ago | (#45285265)

Interesting. I pretty much only/always search for applications on my PC -- hitting command-space brings up spotlight and I type 'excel' (or, more often, 'keynote', 'chrome', or 'terminal'). This behavior came over from when I switched from a Windows box, where I did exactly the same thing (hit the shortcut for the start menu, then 'r' for the 'run' option). It's much quicker than finding an icon (even if I were to have the icon of every program I may be interested in at the bottom of my screen).

And in fact, that ends up being something I do quite often with gmail, too (at least the work version, which I access primarily on a browser, rather than my personal version which I access via IMAP).

Re:Search is Google's answer to everything. (1)

swb (14022) | about 9 months ago | (#45285289)

It's so funny how Microsoft has become kind of a Google wannabe. So many things Google does Microsoft just seems to try copy, even if they were doing it somewhat differently before. They've made Bing a Google search clone. Windows phone. Google Apps? Web based office.

It's a freaking email (0)

oldhack (1037484) | about 9 months ago | (#45284913)

What do you want, a blowjob?

Re:It's a freaking email (0)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 9 months ago | (#45284993)

Are you offering?

Re:It's a freaking email (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | about 9 months ago | (#45285111)

and your asking from a poster named "oldhack"? Desperate times my friend, desperate times.

Re:It's a freaking email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285127)

Those are the best email clients...often called the "the secretary" though i think the name "personal assistant" is becoming more common.

they will often even automatically print out important emails on flattened dead trees, to make them seem even more important!

Re:It's a freaking email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285281)

What do you want, a blowjob?

Judging by the fact his primary bitch is about MS Active Sync, I'm guessing he's hoping someone will saunter up and take him from behind. Dry and rough.

What problem? (2)

formfeed (703859) | about 9 months ago | (#45284921)

I've been using gmail with imap for quite a while, and there really isn't a problem at all.

When you use IMAP, those labels are translated into folders. If you used multiple labels for a message, most clients will create multiple copies, and trying to keep things in sync is tricky.

It hurts when you do this? Well, don't do it then. The problem is not with gmail here. Gmail labels simply don't translate to imap. Decide whether you want to use multiple labels with gmail, or stay with your imap client and use one label only. You can do copies for other folders, or use your email client's labeling system. It would be nice to have a client that recognizes all the labels and then lets you choose which label should correspond to a certain folder, a certain color, etc.. - but that's the client's problem

Re:What problem? (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 9 months ago | (#45285101)

I agree. Although I'm more of an MS product user, I don't see the problem with Gmail. My gmail account works fine and it's free. Who cares if they get access to my personal info. In the end whether it be MS or Google, they can't do this for free forever so they tailor it to be lucrative. As a customer if you want to pay there are plenty of choices but when you try to get what you want in a free product tailored for the masses your reaching to people who don't care about your unique needs.

Outlook.com SMTP servers do not offer SSL/TLS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45284995)

Use checktls.com to verify that outlook.com, hotmail.com, live.com, yahoo.com, etc. do not have SSL. Any messages sent to or from theses systems cross the wires in plain text for NSA to capture. This is reason enough to not use any of these services. At least gmail offers SSL/TLS with PFS algorithm on their SMTP servers.

By Ed Bott for The Ed Bott Report (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285007)

Take a look at this guy's column, it's all Microsoft articles.

At the end of TFA:
"Anyway, I've now set up a permanent forwarder on my @gmail.com address, so that any incoming messages go immediately to my new preferred address, at a custom domain hosted on Outlook.com."

I don't suppose he wrote TFA with any sort of bias towards Microsoft's GMail alternative.

Ed Bott is a clueless dolt (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 9 months ago | (#45285017)

I've always thought it odd that no other email provider ever adopted Gmails "search not sort" mentality.

Because it's stupid. If you have to constantly search for things it means you are a lazy disorganized slob. The number of times I've had to search for an email can be counted on one hand because I have things organized so that I know where they are.

Re:Ed Bott is a clueless dolt (4, Interesting)

slaker (53818) | about 9 months ago | (#45285229)

I keep every single message I've gotten since 1993 in the same inbox with perhaps a half dozen total messages segregated into a different folder. That's around 300,000 emails. I have a very good memory so I seldom need to search, but when I do, I've never found a weakness in the search component of any mail client I care to name, even going back to elm or pine.
The greatest degree of flexibility comes with having all my messages in the same directory; over the last 20 years I've treated it as a quasi-journal and usually if I go back to read a message or two for a given date I can give a pretty accurate summation of everything else I did on that day, so as an organizational structure I'd say it works just fine.

Don't forget "labels" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285067)

Bloody 'orrible things. Many people prefer folders/dirs for organization for a reason, they work.

Disagree completely. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285069)

Like the poster I've been using it since private beta. I used it natively via the browser and loved it. Now an authorised reseller Ive deployed gmail to many business who predominantly use it with 3rd party clients such as mac mail and outlook. I now use it with mac mail. Using IMAP it works flawlessly. My only criticism is the lack of drag and drop via browser but I'm sure that will come. Agree regarding the igoogle disappointment and I too have stopped putting all my eggs in goggles basket. Too many services I came to depend on have been killed off!

The Case Against Email (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 9 months ago | (#45285077)

IMHO, the whole Email thing is past its time. Letting just anyone send means spammers will. When people ask me for my email, I now give out a website where they can set me a message ... after they login. But I don't give them an access name/password unless they ask for one (and no one knows to do that).

Google's lost the plot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285087)

The biggest annoyance about Google at the moment is that bl**dy 1Mbyte plus full window advert picture sequence you get every time when trying to log in.

Oh, and the fact the bl**dy sign in button doesn't work on Firefox on Linux. A workaround for that BTW is to click the sign in button with the middle mouse button to open the sign in window in a new Firefox tab.

Also, if the HTML interface had a "delete all" option in the Bin window like the Javascript version does, I would be happy with the HTML interface as it's quick and far less bloated than the Javascript interface has become.

Works fine in Thunderbird (2)

ClassicASP (1791116) | about 9 months ago | (#45285113)

I gots no complaints. Works fine for me in Thunderbird.

Why Is This News? (4, Insightful)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about 9 months ago | (#45285125)

I am serious. Why does /. consider an article by a Microsoft shill bashing Google and recommending Microsoft's product to be worthy of our time?

Thank you in advance for any serious answers.

better than the new Yahoo mail (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 9 months ago | (#45285131)

After Yahoo recently changed its mail format, Gmail is beginning to look pretty good again.

I don't understand how most people don't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285151)

Just like with Facebook, in GMail you are the product.
 
The same people who won't use Facebook, cawwing on that old familiar tune, should abandon Google/GMail/Android for the same reasons.

Thunderbird reads Gmail just fine . . . (5, Insightful)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 9 months ago | (#45285171)

. . . and what's wrong with IMAP and POP? They're called "standards" because they're "standard" and consistent and don't change every day like some people's menu bars and web interfaces. My wife can read her Gmail from her iPhone, too. Neither of us is confused by their interface . . . In fact I don't know what this article is complaining about other than "MICROSOFT IS NONSTANDARD" which is not exactly a shock, but he's saying it as if everyone else in the world is supposed to conform to Microsoft's standards. Um m m m m , no.

If you're worried about privacy: I pay for Verizon FIOS. That includes email. I *pay* for this, it's *mine*, they're not supposed to be making money off it . . . except I know from other evidence that they are scanning the email just like Google does, especially when I'm looking at it with the webmail interface rather than Thunderbird. So I don't think you can trust paid services either. And I'll bet dollars to donuts that if you run your own server, someone is scanning things to the SMTP port. If you don't control the wires end-to-end, then you don't have control, period.

For the ultra-cool folks who ask "who uses a client" and "who uses email anymore" . . . what are you doing reading such an ancient site as Slashdot? Go read something that nobody else knows about yet, and let us dinosaurs roam in peace.

Use your own (1)

Animats (122034) | about 9 months ago | (#45285177)

Thunderbird as a client, IMAP server on a hosting account with spam filtering. No problems, no ads, no worrying about what will Google/Yahoo/Microsoft screw up next.

"Free" is too expensive.

By coincidence, I logged out of Gmail this week (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 9 months ago | (#45285193)

...and started using Outlook for mail again. Firstly, I don't like all of these mail client upgrades (including Yahoo's). Second, I just hated the idea of being logged in to Google while browsing on the web. Tie that in with Google's viral attempts to trick me into using Google+ and trying to assign my real name to my YouTube posts.

it's the best around (1, Insightful)

cod3r_ (2031620) | about 9 months ago | (#45285237)

3rd party clients SUCCCCKKk.. Gmail is the best there is. It's fast, you can do it from anywhere w/out a dumb bulky client. The messages are stored remotely.. It's intuitive and simple.. Sorry but no case can be made against it. As far as advertisements and all that who cares.. NSA is reading everything we write so fuck it.

Only downside... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45285243)

I've been using Gmail for years and the only annoyance I've had with it is Google pestering me to link other accounts. "No Google, I don't want a Google+ page" "No Google, I don't want to use my real name for my youtube account" "God damnit Google, why did you make my youtube page a Google+ account?!"

Running your own server (2)

bromoseltzer (23292) | about 9 months ago | (#45285249)

I just replaced my Google Mail account with a Raspberry Pi running Postfix and Dovecot. It does the job, if you don't get more than a few messages per minute. My motivation is to reduce my Internet Data Footprint -- the amount of stuff that is available to Google, NSA, et al to paw through. It uses trivial power, so there's no issue running 24/7. (If you're thinking about this, I'd recommend the BeagleBone Black - a lot faster for $10 more.)

The worst downside (besides having to set up and manage the thing) is spam control. Gmail is excellent at this, and Postfix/Amavis/Spamassassin only catches a fraction of the incoming bad stuff. There are cloud services for spam filtering, but they seem expensive for a single user.

2 More days of iGoogle (2)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | about 9 months ago | (#45285285)

Since I started using the internet Google was my home page, then I started using iGoogle (I came to this article from an RSS feed on iGoogle). When its shut I will be switching to http://www.netvibes.com/ [netvibes.com] .

One thing that does make Google stand out is the fact that they make it really easy for you to download your data and I was able to get all my feeds into netvibes with just a couple of clicks.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>