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!

Google Vows to Increase Gmail Limit

CowboyNeal posted about 7 years ago | from the bigger-inboxes-incoming dept.

Google 309

An anonymous reader writes "Google claims that people are devouring capacity with photos and other attachments on its Gmail e-mail service faster than the company can add to it at its current pace. So Google said on Friday that it would increase the rate at which it is adding capacity to its web-based service. There's only one problem, Google's main competitors — Windows Live Hotmail and Yahoo Mail — far surpassed Gmail this year with their own capacity."

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

hands up (5, Insightful)

wwmedia (950346) | about 7 years ago | (#20965233)

hands up who here uses gmail to the max?

myself after 2 years im only using ~500MB

Re:hands up (5, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 7 years ago | (#20965243)

I haven't filled my inbox, but I use GMail to the Maxx!!!

I offer my share of gmail space for charity (1)

someone1234 (830754) | about 7 years ago | (#20965271)

I won't be using it in the foreseeable future.

Re:hands up (5, Insightful)

konekoniku (793686) | about 7 years ago | (#20965297)

I've actually hit the limit twice now, and had to spend a few hours searching and deleting emails with attachments to free up space (am now back down to 96% of capacity). What causes this is primarily convenience (or laziness, depending on how you see it) -- I have a habit of never deleting emails. If an email is useless (e.g., random emails from university mailing lists that don't concern me), I never even bother to open it, much less delete it (the way gmail lets you preview the first dozen or so words in your email without ever opening it is very useful for this).

Re:hands up (1, Flamebait)

yincrash (854885) | about 7 years ago | (#20965901)

There is no way random university mailing lists are filling up your inbox unless you're getting mailing lists with regular attachments of 1MB.

Re:hands up (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | about 7 years ago | (#20965323)

hands up who here uses gmail to the max?

I am currently using 1424 MB (46%) of your 3069 MB.

Re:hands up (5, Funny)

ukatoton (999756) | about 7 years ago | (#20965341)

NOOOOOO! Leave my 3069 MB alone!

Re:hands up (1)

Simon (S2) (600188) | about 7 years ago | (#20965401)

I knew a reply like this would come 2 seconds after I hit submit :)

Re:hands up (2, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#20965591)

3069?????
My limit is at 2993.

Re:hands up (1)

10e6Steve (545457) | about 7 years ago | (#20965627)

I've got 3073 MB.

Re:hands up (2, Funny)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | about 7 years ago | (#20965749)

3075 MB Bitches!!

Re:hands up (2, Funny)

Simon (S2) (600188) | about 7 years ago | (#20965663)

That's because I am so cool and you are a looser

Re:hands up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965345)

I only use 14MB at the moment, but then again - I delete crap I don't need to keep, and even if I didn't I doubt I would even break 100MB.

I use email for writing text messages and not as a file transport, perhaps that's why I waste so little space.

And yeah, I've been using it for about 2 years too (or longer, I'm not sure).

Re:hands up (1, Interesting)

michrech (468134) | about 7 years ago | (#20965533)

I've got 2270 messages sitting in my inbox and that only equates to 90mb... The oldest message there is from 07/30/2004 (the date I finally got an invite!), and it is from "Gmail Team", telling me how Gmail is different. :)

I use my gmail account for the printer repair mailing list I'm a member of. Really haven't used it for much else (I'm too used to having folders. I don't like the "label" system, especially because every message comes in with the "General" label and, thus far, I haven't been able to find a way to set the "default" label I see when I first open my inbox (what if I don't *want* to see every single email I have when I first log in?).

I'm sure there is someone here with an even older account. This is just my two cents. :)

Re:hands up (5, Insightful)

Gaerek (1088311) | about 7 years ago | (#20965589)

Archive button is your friend. That's the whole purpose of the labels.

Re:hands up (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965379)

call me crazy, but i've kept all my email from all the way back -- that'd be 1993. i keep it all organized in an imap folder ... and it is about 32GB now. so, once they increase their measly 5GB seven-fold, i may consider using them.

Re:hands up (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 7 years ago | (#20965463)

Use your own domain and pay $5.00/month

Re:hands up (1)

empaler (130732) | about 7 years ago | (#20965493)

Use your own domain and pay $5.00/month
That's currently capped at 25 gigs AFAIR.

Re:hands up (1)

pla (258480) | about 7 years ago | (#20965525)

Use your own domain and pay $5.00/month

You pay $60/year for your domain registration? You might want to shop around a bit...

(Unless you know of an actual hosting company offering unlimited space and bandwidth for $5/mo, in which case, where do I sign up?)

Re:hands up (3, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | about 7 years ago | (#20965837)

I get 300GB storage and 3TB of bandwidth for under eight bucks a month (and they often have sign-up specials that knock that down to six or so). If all you're looking for is a gigantic inbox, I think that should suffice reasonably. PowWeb [powweb.com] , if you care.

Most importantly, I have IMAP. I'd been bouncing between gmail and my own domain's mail for some time, but having finally set up IMAP through my host and not having that option with gmail, my solution is just to forward * to my IMAP'd domain.

Re:hands up (1)

ftide (454731) | about 7 years ago | (#20965929)

This supply side storage capacity news is old news.

What about taking along your gmail text, images and bittorrent audio on a wii-mote or a hacked iPod?

First, solve the aesthetics ( care & handling ), support and personal device connectivity of apps for said devices. After this the carriers will come in to provision bandwidth on a subscription basis.

Re:hands up (2, Funny)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | about 7 years ago | (#20965451)

Just over three years now (oldest email in the inbox is from August 2004), I'm at 430 MB. I never actively delete emails except spam, but I did accidentally remove several months worth of emails when I accidentally had the wrong IMAP settings.

I'm guessing they'd have to be under a LOT of pressure to make storage "unlimited" because of all the people that would very quickly devour that using gmail-drive programs. Personally, I think I would just install Ubuntu on gmail-drive and never worry about space again ;)

Re:hands up (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#20965567)

5 MB. Mostly small files uploaded w/ the GmailSpace firefox extension. I like to keep my email under control.

Re:hands up (3, Funny)

SkyDude (919251) | about 7 years ago | (#20965573)

hands up who here uses gmail to the max?
myself after 2 years im only using ~500MB

Well, maybe it's because you don't have friends or relatives that send you stupid videos and pictures.

I regret the day I trained my mother-in-law how to attach things to emails. I may have to show her how to find things on Youtube or how to upload and link to them on Youtube.

Or maybe just break her PC and tell her it can't be fixed........

Re:hands up (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | about 7 years ago | (#20965633)

But then you would have to help assist her in choosing another one. And set it up for her. And you know that there will be all sorts of little inconveniences that had been solved on her first system but have to be solved again over the next 6 months.

Re:hands up (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 7 years ago | (#20965619)

I'm pretty far from the limit, but I only use Gmail as my throwaway address. I'm thinking about forwarding PGP encrypted copies of my real mail over to Gmail for backup/archival purposes, but my 3 year old archives only weigh in at 1.3 gigabytes, and that's including listserv mail that I don't really need to archive (it's archived all over the place on the web.)

I don't do a lot of attachments, so I guess that's how I manage to weigh in so low.

Re:hands up (2, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 7 years ago | (#20965653)

I use it as a rolling backup of important documents. One to the working folder, one to a backup drive on another machine, and one to Gmail. With the integration of gmail with google docs, thats actually incredibly handy. I have several utility spreadsheets sat in google docs that I use quite often.

I've been doing this for two years, and I'm up to 66Mb. I delete obsolete backups after six months.

I don't have a large set of old mail either, with few exceptions I delete it.

Re:hands up (4, Insightful)

CODiNE (27417) | about 7 years ago | (#20965827)

I hate to say it but I think we've reached a point where "normal people" use their tech more than the geeks do. At least in the email area. I too would be using a small chunk of my GMail space except for mom emailing me sunsets, uncle John sending pictures of his farm and all those stupid HTML emails they send. Sure its a waste of bandwidth to us, but they're generally more social and tend to fill our mailboxes faster.

I would max on a daily basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965843)

"Hands up who here uses gmail to the max?"

If you belong to various google and yahoo 'image' groups you can easily reach your max. For example, I used to get 5GB of images a day.

I'm not sure if gmail still does it, but when deleting via POP it wouldn't completely delete the mail. Thus I used Yahoo, who at the time only had a 1GB limit, and made sure I had a computer on that could retrieve my mail 24/7.

Re:hands up (1)

chrisvk (1130113) | about 7 years ago | (#20965865)

After not deleting any message since April 2004 my mailbox size contains about 10000 mails and... $ du -sh vmail/chrisvk/ 282M vmail/chrisvk/ I actually always thought that gmail's mailbox size was vastly hugely mindboggingly big, but I usually don't use mails for large file transfers.

Re:hands up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965943)

I'm only using 3 Megs after a few years. I keep my email account clean and trim and don't let things pile up. Use archiving when necessary.

If people are insisting on sending HUGE attachments, then they need to start using the OTHER free google services like Picasa and Google Docs. That way you only need to send a link to the site instead of choking the mail servers with those monster attachments.

I occasionally visit my unlimited Yahoo account, only to find spam in my inbox and legitimate stuff in my bulk folder. Unlimited storage isn't the only consideration. Plus Yahoo's interface is cluttered and sluggish. Gmail is much better in terms of performance, even with public computers and wireless access. Hotmail? ha ha ha!!

I figured Gmail would eventually catch-up with storage, but even at 2 gigs, Gmail rocks!

Passed up, nothing (5, Funny)

stonecypher (118140) | about 7 years ago | (#20965239)

Yahoo! Mail went to unlimited like six months ago. Anyone still watching their mail space should focus their time fending off mastodon with their obsidian knives.

Yahoo mail isn't unlimited. (1, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 years ago | (#20965435)

Or why does it say 1GB once you want to sign up?

Re:Yahoo mail isn't unlimited. (1)

vidarh (309115) | about 7 years ago | (#20965559)

Sounds like someone forgot to remove some text somewhere, or possibly they may still have limits for some of the international versions (I used to work at Yahoo - many of the international subsidiaries at least used to get to set different policies for core products like mail depending on competitive pressures, cost and whether or not they have premium products that would be affected).

And they don't do POP3 anyway. (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 years ago | (#20965703)

Also they don't do POP3, Google does but I never use it... I want a free e-mail service which supports IMAP, preferably over SSL. PLz k thnx.

Re:Yahoo mail isn't unlimited. (1)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | about 7 years ago | (#20965861)

Yahoo's space isn't unlimited, but their spam is.

Re:Passed up, nothing (1)

Sleepy (4551) | about 7 years ago | (#20965835)

Yahoo NEEDS to increase Inbox sizes... to hold all the spam Yahoo places there.
Yahoo's not my main account, but after a few years I can say that GMail is WAY better at blocking spam.
I must get 200 spams in my Yahoo inbox each month.
With GMail, I get about 12 spams a month, and once in a while (rarely) a false positive such as a newsletter landing in the spam folder.
With Yahoo, I never bother to check my Spam folder because the spam filters are so weak, why bother?

Why don't people care about their data's safety? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965251)

I find it astounding that people would so willing store so much personal information on the servers of these companies. I don't care if we're talking about Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, or some other company. It's just damn scary to think that so many people would just give out all that data. Is it because they're ignorant of the risks? Or maybe they know, but it's convenient, and they're willing to take the chance that the naked photos of themselves that they're storing in their hosted email account could be publically released?

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (2, Interesting)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | about 7 years ago | (#20965461)

Some of us use gmail for most of our email and use something less risky for the "naked photos of ourselves."

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

wateriestfire (962915) | about 7 years ago | (#20965547)

I find it amazing how people strive to have the most menial things secure. I don't honestly care.

The only email that should be secure is corporate email, and bank email, otherwise the encryption/decryption is just a waste of time and a pain to set up. Wasn't anybody taught about usability in comp class?

If it doesn't need to be secure, why on earth should it be. Banks and corporations usually run their own email systems anyway and throw security on them to make it hard for people to hack in. Though if absolutely no one cares about Joe Sixpack's email. What would he secure from? What is the purpose of all these wasted cpu cycles? If anything all it would do is make it harder for people to set up their email client right.

efficiency people!

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1, Interesting)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20965601)

Can you please post your e-mails from your Gmail account then? After all, you don't care about security do you?

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

wateriestfire (962915) | about 7 years ago | (#20965727)

all I am saying is that the security should match the importance of the contents being secure. No need to employ a high security situation on non valuable information, in fact that is just terrible design.

I eat trolls for breakfast.

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20965769)

And how is having e-mail stored locally instead of on an online account high security?

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

wateriestfire (962915) | about 7 years ago | (#20965849)

well, one reason could be if the email sever for whatever reason fails to work, you still have all the copies. though I never said that email stored locally was any more secure than email on the online account or vise versa, so I have no idea where this is coming from.

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

Sancho (17056) | about 7 years ago | (#20965655)

I don't take naked photos of myself, but if I did, I wouldn't e-mail them to myself, either.

Regardless, the answer to your question is that most people are simply that trusting. If it's a company, they think that they're going to do the Right Thing. They also don't understand that these services are constantly under attack by people either seeking thrills or trying to get valuable information.

Finally, people usually end up sending naked pictures of themselves to other people. In that case, you're always trusting third-parties that the pictures won't show up somewhere.

Re:Why don't people care about their data's safety (1)

IkeTo (27776) | about 7 years ago | (#20965787)

> I find it astounding that people would so willing store so much personal information on the
> servers of these companies. ... Is it because they're ignorant of the risks?

Can you suggest anywhere to handling our mail in such a way that no risk is involved? For the starter, it is okay if you propose a system without the following risks: that of "mails leaking to somebody who shouldn't be able to read my mails", of "having to pay undue amount of money to just to make sure others can E-mail me", of "getting so much spam that we have to spend undue amount of time just to process inbox", of "not being able to find a mail even though I know it must be somewhere", and of "not being able to access my mailbox within a minute".

it's true! (5, Funny)

ClippySay (930525) | about 7 years ago | (#20965263)

/ It's true, people is attaching files of \
| huge size! My back wire pains and my    |
\ job insurance won't cover it!           /
     \
      \
       \     ____
        \   / __ \
         \  O|  |O|
            ||  | |
            ||  | |
            ||    |
             |___/

Re:it's true! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965285)

< Did you mean 'people are'? >
     \
      \
       \     ____
        \   / __ \
         \  O|  |O|
            ||  | |
            ||  | |
            ||    |
             |___/

beggars can't be choosers (-1, Flamebait)

Speare (84249) | about 7 years ago | (#20965275)

I really just don't get this attitude about free email services. It's ad-supported. You can delete stuff if their already generous-for-free service is getting full. They likely have gotten all the value out of reading your older emails anyway, so it's not in their best interest to offer you endlessly increasing storage. Stop being a mooch and a whiner.

Re:beggars can't be choosers (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 years ago | (#20965303)

In know lots of people whose photo collection is in their email.

- especially since the email providers made downloading multiple photos such a pain (I think this is done on purpose as Yet Another Lock-In).

Re:beggars can't be choosers (1)

pyite (140350) | about 7 years ago | (#20965319)

especially since the email providers made downloading multiple photos such a pain (I think this is done on purpose as Yet Another Lock-In).

Or because, you know, they never intended to be your photo repository.

Re:beggars can't be choosers (2, Informative)

empaler (130732) | about 7 years ago | (#20965515)

In Gmail, there's "Download all attachments as Zip". And POP3. I don't know about them other mail services, but that seems pretty straightforward to me.

Re:beggars can't be choosers (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20965613)

I really just don't get this attitude about free email services. It's ad-supported.
So is it free or not? Because in one sentence you say it is and then in the second sentence you reveal it isn't.

I even RTFA, how uneventfull. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20965277)

Reminds me of the Charter/Satalite commerical "We're working on it!!!"

Google pushes... (0)

ultramkancool (827732) | about 7 years ago | (#20965281)

but they fail. Google forced the industry forwards in this aspect, remember when hotmail accounts had 5 MB of storage and yahoo, 10? Well, gmail dropped us all with a gig, and now look, everyone else has done better then them. We'll just see where this ends up, I hope they do the same as yahoo and forget the storage meter altogether... though I do like bragging about how much of my gmail inbox I've used. :You are currently using 543 MB (18%) of your 2993 MB."

just one new feature (5, Interesting)

DMoylan (65079) | about 7 years ago | (#20965313)

i'd be really happy if they allowed me to delete the attachments but leave the email. i believe the feature was requested yonks ago but so far has not happened. i'm currently at 50% but that would drop to less than 10% if i could delete the attachments i already have downloaded.

other than that i cannot fault the service. i get my email at work, home and on my phone with no hassles. thanks google!

Re:just one new feature (2, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 7 years ago | (#20965395)

That sounds like a really good feature for right here, right now.
Consider however that you are reading that same (now sanitised) mail a few months later.

How frustrating would it be to have your red hot ex girlfriend in a mail saying "i've attached the video of me wearing my Princess Leia outfit for you" and discover you fucking deleted it.

If you want the feature so badly, forward it to yourself and exclude the attachment or just delete the whole mail.

Ex (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | about 7 years ago | (#20965755)

How frustrating would it be to have your red hot ex girlfriend in a mail saying "i've attached the video of me wearing my Princess Leia outfit for you" and discover you fucking deleted it.

If she's my ex, then that means she's screwing somebody else by then
and the absolute LAST thing I want to be reminded of is any erotic
imagery of her, you insensitive clod!

Re:just one new feature (1)

trb (8509) | about 7 years ago | (#20965443)

i agree that deleting attachments would be useful. that, combined with a search operator to find messages based on their size. they already have has:attachment, but an operator to look for messages larger than a size would help too. if i couldn't delete just the attachments, i'd settle for deleting the whole messages, if only i could find them.

Re:just one new feature (1)

bazorg (911295) | about 7 years ago | (#20965499)

100% agreed. With all the search expertise those guys have, maybe it's possible to have all WMV and AVI attachments replaced by having the body of the message with a link to googlevideo where all crap my friends send could be stored. of course I would prefer if google asked permission before making this conversion first. maybe an alternative "archive" button for this kind of stuff would be enough.

Re:just one new feature (5, Funny)

Duncan3 (10537) | about 7 years ago | (#20965521)

It takes at least 5,001 engineers to figure out how to delete attachments, and Google only has 5,000. So it's really just beyond them to figure it out. It's not like the code to do that is just laying around in a dozen open source packages or anything.

I've known dozens of people what "worked" at Google, and they all say it's just one big party. The only people that work are the low-paid ad sales crew - the ones responsible for 99.9% of last quarter's revenue.

If it doesn't sell ads, noone works on it.

Re:just one new feature (2, Insightful)

WillyMF1 (867862) | about 7 years ago | (#20965863)

Forward the message to yourself, sans attachment, and delete the original. I know its more of a pain than the feature would be, but its not that tough.

Re:just one new feature (1)

TeamSPAM (166583) | about 7 years ago | (#20965883)

On a similar vein, I would like to have a feature where you could download the attachments for multiple emails. Then I wouldn't have to look at each email to download my attachments.

Some more needed features (1)

Nick Driver (238034) | about 7 years ago | (#20965923)

I would like to see the ability to adjust the number of days to keep stuff in the spam folder... like down to zero days. Also would like to have blacklisting and whitelisting capability on my Gmail account. Also would like to have S/IMAP connection support too.

Why long beta periods? (0, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | about 7 years ago | (#20965327)

GMail has been in beta for more than a year now! I wonder why.

Re:Why long beta periods? (1)

Ailure (853833) | about 7 years ago | (#20965365)

It's over three years now actually. Three and a half even.

Hotmail fails to trans,it attachments... (2, Interesting)

justanetgod (554210) | about 7 years ago | (#20965343)

Microsoft can advertise that users have a larger capacity with ease - many users have reported that attachments aren't transmitted when using Hotmail, and I've experienced this phenomena personally. Easy to add vaporous capacity to Hotmail, or would bogus be a better term? Gmail on the other hand has never done this to me.

Re:Hotmail fails to trans,it attachments... (1)

JNighthawk (769575) | about 7 years ago | (#20965531)

And GMail doesn't allow you to transmit executables AND it scans zip files for executables. They both have unfriendly policies when it comes to attachments.

Single point of failure + high value target (4, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | about 7 years ago | (#20965369)

I can understand using these services as a backup, but as people shift more and more of their online life to web 2.0, they will find that less and less of their files/data/structured products reside on their own local PC. How many people have a full backup of their Flickr albums (with all the organization structures and metadata that they've enter into flickr?) How many people have a full backup of their GMail accounts? These systems are just one botched upgrade away from data loss (does Google or its competitors have a full backup of ALL users' mail service data and will the restore process actual work?)

I also wonder at what point in time will internet criminals shift their attentions to online services such as Hotmail/Yahoo/GMail as a means of hosting spam/scam operations. A smart scammer could parasitize a group of GMail accounts and send out a few spams a day from each account from a million accounts at once. As long as the scammer obfuscates their emails (use Picassa to create CAPTCHA-like GIF spam) so that the Gmail doesn't notice a million identical emails being sent for a million accounts, the parasite process can survive. And if a criminal finds a way to create an internal GMail worm (one that can propagate itself from account to account without any interaction by the account holder), then they can turn the entire GMail system into a botnet.

My point is that these massive system have some serious single-points of failure and are becoming extremely high-value targets for internet criminals.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (1)

FoolsGold (1139759) | about 7 years ago | (#20965389)

Precisely the reason why I don't rely on GMail for anything critical. Heck I'm only using 6MB anyway - despite what they say, I still prefer cleaning out the crap.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (5, Informative)

MadMorf (118601) | about 7 years ago | (#20965459)

These systems are just one botched upgrade away from data loss (does Google or its competitors have a full backup of ALL users' mail service data and will the restore process actual work?)

Speaking as a storage engineer working for a vendor used by one their competitors (The Goog uses us too, but not for Gmail afaik) the answer is yes.

A couple of months ago there was a failed raid group which housed 200,000 mailboxes, which was restored with only a loss of 15 seconds of email.

Not bad for free, eh?

Backup/restore: hardware vs. app layer faults (1)

G4from128k (686170) | about 7 years ago | (#20965771)

I did not mean to cast aspersions on the storage industry. They've worked extremely hard to create hardware-layer reliability and robust backup/restore processes because the fate of a storage company rests on reliability.

Instead, I'd argue that the more insidious type of fault would occur in the apps layer, probably during or after a Version++ migration. Creeping corruption in Yahoo/Microsoft/Google data structures would render the data backups only incrementally less corrupted than the production copy of the data. Unless these systems use a application layer journalling process that can roll-back and roll-forward all the user actions since the version migration, the corruption would cause data loss that no conventional storage system backup can recover from.

People don't back up anyways. (5, Insightful)

Oshawapilot (1039614) | about 7 years ago | (#20965465)

With the exception of probably the majority of us here, most computer users are completely devoid of any regular backup schedule regardless. IMHO this makes Gmail far superior for the average (read as: hopelessly unprepared) computer user. I've lost track of how many people I've heard say "I lost your email because my computer crashed" over the years. I've yet to hear one Gmail user say the same thing. That aside, I'm sure Google, of all companies out there, make some effort to ensure there's some amount of backup or redundancy as part of the Gmail system.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 7 years ago | (#20965479)

Sounds like a strong argument for everybody keeping their money at home under the mattress instead of a bank.

Compared to the atrocious data security and safeguards most home users have (which is to say, none), having the pros at google or hotmail take care of it is a huge step up. At least they don't put it all on one drive with no backup or accidentally throw it away when they get a new computer.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (1)

spvo (955716) | about 7 years ago | (#20965961)

Sounds like a strong argument for everybody keeping their money at home under the mattress instead of a bank.
Right, because institutions such as banks never fail, http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/29/0627217 [slashdot.org] . The FDIC was created to guarantee that people wouldn't lose their savings in the event of the banks colapse, which is the only reason I think a lot of people still don't keep their savings stuffed in a matress.
Anyway, its never a good idea to have so much faith in a company that you trust all your data to them. If you are not keeping backups yourself, however reliable google may be, then you have still have a single point of failure for the loss of all your email.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 7 years ago | (#20965577)

...as people shift more and more of their online life to web 2.0, they will find that less and less of their files...

I think you find that having a real like and an "online life" are orthogonal, and as such, people who matter are precisely the ones NOT impacted by the storage problem at Google, or the dilemma of "dude, where's my data?"

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 7 years ago | (#20965693)

heh ... criminals are okay, and negligence that destroys your email, well, you could live with it. the government being able to read my conveniently indexed mails is what scares me more.

Re:Single point of failure + high value target (2, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | about 7 years ago | (#20965899)

How many people have a full backup of their Flickr albums

Probably every one of them.

(with all the organization structures and metadata that they've enter into flickr?)

If the worst problem you have from an event of major data loss, is being forced to input some metadata, you can count yourself as damn lucky.

These systems are just one botched upgrade away from data loss

As opposed to storing everything locally? I know lots of people that have lost lots of data when their local system was ruined thanks to viruses, OS bugs, and hardware failure. Many, many more than have had a sudden data loss from any major service provider.

I imagine free internet storage is the only form of backups most regular people have. I would certainly trust Google over any particular hard drive, and the chances are pretty damn slim that both would fail catastrophically at the same time.

A smart scammer could parasitize a group of GMail accounts and send out a few spams a day from each account from a million accounts at once.

After a couple days, when Google gets a dozen complaints about each account, then what? How long will it take to get a million accounts again? A "single point of failure" is also a single point of control that can be used quite effectively against malicious individuals like spammers.

And if a criminal finds a way to create an internal GMail worm (one that can propagate itself from account to account without any interaction by the account holder), then they can turn the entire GMail system into a botnet.

And if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped.

Just because you can invent a magical little hypothetical doesn't make it actually possible.

My point is that these massive system have some serious single-points of failure and are becoming extremely high-value targets for internet criminals.

"Massive" tends to be mutually exclusive with "single-points of failure" and the site where you upload your GBs of pictures is about the lowest-value a target could possibly be.

Getting access to a web site doesn't grant criminals any special privileges. All they can do is potentially capture the information you input to that specific site. A very, very different thing than getting root access on a local machine. Websites have been taken-over many times before, and no matter how important the site, it wasn't the end of the world for anyone.

I'd be much, much, MUCH more worried about the security of my paypal account than my GMail and Flikr accounts.

DVD service next? (2, Interesting)

Pig Hogger (10379) | about 7 years ago | (#20965393)

I can see where they're coming to... A new service:

Burn all that e-mail that's burning your account on a DVD overnighted to you for only $50!!! For an extra $20, all the e-mail that has been burned will be tagged "DVD" so you can delete it in a click!!!

I don't get it (1)

Apreche (239272) | about 7 years ago | (#20965413)

Seriously, I never understood this obsession with e-mail limits. Who really needs this much e-mail storage? Who? Sure, if you were some Internet celebrity getting a pile of e-mail, then you might need some sort of infinite storage. I think that a letter to the right people at Google, and maybe some money, could get you infinite storage if you really were a celebrity.

Seriously though. I have been using GMail for domains for years now. I like to think I get an average amount of e-mail. I never delete anything, and the GMail spam filter is in perfect working order. As of right now I am using 404 MB (13%) of my 2910 MB. Why the hell do I need more space? Maybe if I were using that GMail file system thing to store stuff. While that is a cool hack, it is entirely impractical. It's much easier to just get a real networked storage solution. I guess I would need more space if I were sending and receiving lots of large attachments. But e-mail attachments are crap. I never download attachments. They can't be trusted, even in Linux. And there are better and faster ways to transfer files to people than e-mail.

So seriously. You people who are dying for more storage, what the heck are you using all that space for? Are you an Internet celebrity getting a million e-mails? Are you not deleting your spam? Are you using e-mail attachments despite their obsolescence? I just don't get it.

Re:I don't get it (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | about 7 years ago | (#20965481)

Email attachments are obsolete? Explain.

Hotmail isn't a good comparison (3, Informative)

CNERD (121095) | about 7 years ago | (#20965423)

Hotmail STILL has ads at the footer of every message sent. Neither Yahoo nor Gmail do that. Who cares how big they let your inbox be, if they make every email you send look like spam.

Re:Hotmail isn't a good comparison (1)

my $anity 0 (917519) | about 7 years ago | (#20965631)

At the end of my most recent message from a yahoo account (yesterday)

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.

Problem? (5, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 7 years ago | (#20965425)

``There's only one problem, Google's main competitors Windows Live Hotmail and Yahoo Mail far surpassed Gmail this year with their own capacity.''

Problem? On the contrary! This is great. It's competition at work, improving things for users. Google offered lots of storage. Now it's competitors offer more. In response, Google will offer more. Whichever of these services you are using, you will get a better deal. The only problem here is how you can put all that space to good use.

They surpassed it because (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | about 7 years ago | (#20965433)

People are not utilizing their services to the fullest. Naturally, they are able to oversell their storage. As users utilize only percentages of that space you can go on allocating more to each user, because they will be only using a percentage of it anyway. Much common in the hosting world. but not advised.

Who even wants to use something else? (3, Informative)

Iloinen Lohikrme (880747) | about 7 years ago | (#20965469)

Who even wants to use something else than Gmail? I use Gmail as my personal email, and my company uses Gmail for domains for our email. From the day one Gmail has offered easy to use and intuitive web mail with enough free space. In about three years that I have used Gmail for my personal use, I have only succeeded in using 312Mb of it. My own company mail address has only gathered 157Mb. For those people who use web mail for email, I don't think that the space requirement has been after Gmail was launched a key part on comparing different email services. Even if Gmail still had only 1Gb limit, I still wouldn't even consider other services.

Also if somebody from Google is reading this message, what I need and want right now, that you are not offering is J2ME mobile client for Gmail for domains. It's ridicules that Google offers mobile client for regular Gmail, but for Gmail for domains there is non. There should be no technical reason for denying the client. If you don't want to offer it free, maybe you could offer it as a part of subscription for Gmail for domains. And no, I don't want to use mobile version via mobile browser, that just doesn't work as well as pure mobile client.

Another wish that I have is that Google besides raising email space would raise space for photos. I love Picasa and I have saved some of my personal photos to Picasa Web. The only thing why I haven't moved all my personal photos to it is that there just isn't enough space for it. Also I don't want to order subscription for it, as for me it's unclear what happens to photos if I end the subscription. Does Google just delete all photos after day 1 of non subscripted time? In example if I hurt my self or get sick, or my credit goes bad, and I can't afford to pay the subscription, I really wouldn't want all my loved photos just disappearing in bit space.

Re:Who even wants to use something else? (1)

El Lobo (994537) | about 7 years ago | (#20965511)

Who even wants to use something else than Gmail?
You and your company are using GMail, but this doesn't mean that you have the ultimate truth... Most companies are sane enough to have their own servers. In the place I work for we have a combination of Exchane in a Windows 2003 server, A Linuzzz box running vanilla pop and smtp and another Windows Box running FirstClass as collaborative software. (Why do we use so much things at the same time , it's a long story)... But I **REALLY*** think that your company is a minority here, using a 3rd party service for (maybe important) business mail....

Re:Who even wants to use something else? (1)

apparently (756613) | about 7 years ago | (#20965645)

Who even wants to use something else than Gmail?

People who don't want to worry about XSS vulnerabilities [slashdot.org] ?
People who don't want to worry about stolen session cookies?

Re:Who even wants to use something else? (1)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20965721)

Who even wants to use something else than Gmail?
Me. If you read Google's Privacy Policy (who does that? I know, simply shocking) they've given themselves permission to create profiles based on every single e-mail that has ever gone through your inbox (as well as information form any other services you use with your Gmail account). They can then use this to send even more ads to you or even sell it. Personally I value my privacy a bit more then that, so I'm phasing out my use of Google.

A tip on how to clean-up your GMail meanwhile! (1)

zukinux (1094199) | about 7 years ago | (#20965501)

A few of you actually ran out of space, but un-till gmail will give you more space, you can delete your old big-sized emails.
You can search using the Search Box on your top page of your gmail, and do an "advanced" search to only look for attachments so you will see some big-sized emails and delete them to free your gmail account meanwhile!.
search for the following string : --> "has:attachment" will give you all the emails with attachments.

I hope it will help you.
zukinux

Re:A tip on how to clean-up your GMail meanwhile! (4, Insightful)

sisukapalli1 (471175) | about 7 years ago | (#20965553)

It would have been really nice to have a "search by attachment, with size > X" option... This way, we can delete huge attachments first. Often, in Thunderbird, I sort by size and keep moving large messages to another folder.

Gmail search has been wonderful, so I use it for searching messages, and use Thunderbird for reading mails.

S

Great, gotta love competition (1)

puck01 (207782) | about 7 years ago | (#20965505)

I'm not sure many people care anyway.

The thing is, google started this and I loved them for it. They raised the bar to 1 gig out of nowhere and everyone rejoiced. It was long over due at the time as limits were far too low in general. Now, I'd guess they are reasonable for the vast majority. As long as google 'keeps up' at this point and accommodating its users, I'm not sure this is a bid deal.

hotmail and attachments (1)

masticina (1001851) | about 7 years ago | (#20965523)

Of course livemail has no troubles as only 10% of the attachments get through anyway! Very usefull!

google wants users to reach limit and pay up (5, Insightful)

paleshadows (1127459) | about 7 years ago | (#20965611)

  • Google now sells storage [blogspot.com] to people that reached the space limit: 10GB for $20 per year, 40GB for $75, 150GB for $250, or 400GB for $500; the prices are specified in https://www.google.com/accounts/PurchaseStorage [google.com] , but you need to have a gmail account to access this page.
  • Google repeatedly refuses to users' requests to add to the gmail interface an option to delete attachments, which is one of the most wanted gmail features [grytoyr.net] , thereby making it hard to save space.
  • Likewise, google repeatedly refuses to let you sort email messages by size [google.com] , making it almost impossible to locate the most space-consuming emails, a functionality one really needs when one reaches the space limit.
  • Considering the above non-existent options are really trivial to add, one can only conclude that google wants you to reach the limit and pay up. And they claim they're "not evil"...

Re:google wants users to reach limit and pay up (2, Insightful)

Phil246 (803464) | about 7 years ago | (#20965885)

that depends on if you define capitalism to be evil too...

Hotmail? (1, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | about 7 years ago | (#20965649)

What does Hotmail's limit matter when it won't deliver the bloody emails in the first place?

IMAP (2, Insightful)

Tim_UWA (1015591) | about 7 years ago | (#20965713)

I will use GMail when they implement IMAP. Webmail is a pile of shit, and POP is an even bigger pile.

Re:IMAP (2, Insightful)

olddoc (152678) | about 7 years ago | (#20965911)

I want IMAP too!
Webmail and pop suck on mobile devices.

Am I missing something here? (5, Insightful)

BadEvilYoda (935532) | about 7 years ago | (#20965845)

What is limiting you to ONE GMail account, if your first one is too full? It's not like they verify anything, if you're absolutely in love with GMail, and run out of space in free account #1, sign up for free account #2, and off you go, instant DOUBLE STORAGE. Yes, it's slightly inconvenient, but with auto-forwarding of all new mail to the new account enabled, and the ability to "send as" the old account #1 from #2 ... really not much of a problem.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?