Google's new "Inbox" hopes to simplify email

in internet on 2014-10-22 19:04 (#2TKC)

Gmail is the email solution of choice for a huge number of Netizens, and that provides a rich playing field for developers hoping to be useful to you by providing tools that simplify email overflow. Enter Google with its latest endeavor, "Inbox." From Engadget:

If you're anything like us, Google's Gmail has an iron grip on your life. Google's looking to create a whole new iron grip with a new app from its Gmail team, and it's called "Inbox." What is it? That's a good question -- Google's made a demo slash advertisement video that we've dropped below. As far as we can tell, Inbox is a combination of Google Now and your Gmail inbox -- a "smart" inbox, if you will. It combines alike pieces of email (bank invoices, for example), highlights related information (like Google Now alerting you to flight changes, traffic, etc.) and keeps track of your life (it'll give you reminders, among other heads ups). Is this the end of Gmail? We seriously doubt it, but it is Google's latest foray into simplifying email.

Regardless what it is... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 19:12 (#2TKE)

...thanks, but no thanks, Google. Google services are simply too unreliable. They come and go. For me normal email is good enough as it is and my inbox is exactly as smart as I want it to be.

Just saw Slashdot got this one too (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 20:51 (#2TKF)

n/t

Re: Just saw Slashdot got this one too (Score: 2, Funny)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-22 20:57 (#2TKG)

Hmm... hard to flame and troll about this story. So no need for me to go to /. ;-)

Pay for privacy (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-22 21:46 (#2TKP)

I use runbox now. Not as good as gmail. Private. Cheap. Decent mailbox allocation. Email is a service worth paying for.

Re: Pay for privacy (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 01:05 (#2TKV)

So was Lavabit.

Wave Goodbye (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 01:07 (#2TKW)

Here we go again.

https://support.google.com/answer/1083134?hl=en

IMAP for the win.

Re: Wave Goodbye (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 01:57 (#2TKZ)

Inbox uses gmail behind the scenes, including IMAP.

Re: Wave Goodbye (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 02:03 (#2TM1)

If Inbox really uses IMAP that would be hilarious, as GMail does its darnedest to make IMAP as weird and unpredictable as possible. GMail is really just big POP3 boxes with funky search and labels/tags.

Does it really need to be... (Score: 2, Interesting)

by konomi@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 05:32 (#2TM5)

Does google mail need to be even more simple? It seems simple enough but I'm not exactly the "Can you dumb that down for me to my level?" type of person. The way technology is being directed at the moment by many companies reminds me of the jokes about an Apple device that only has a single button for simplicity. I dread a future where everyone has the devices they used dumb down so they can understand them strait away instead of elevating themselves to understanding their device, and perhaps by extension the world around them more.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 12:42 (#2TMB)

Not sure I agree. GMail is actually a terrible user interface, with the usual hide and seek options and disappearing buttons so inexplicably in vogue now. It also happens to be ugly as sin. It could get a LOT better. I'm also torn on the "understand their device" construct. It should only be necessary to a point. Machines serve and should anticipate humans. Apple's always gone too far the wrong way, removing mouse buttons and power switches.

The single most glaring flaw of iOS is the missing Back button. It makes the entire interface a chore. They will likely introduce a sneaky alternative to much fanfare (a la the "Magic Mouse") in a version or three.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 16:49 (#2TMP)

The tragedy of gmail is that at first the interface was very good and it's gotten worse with each iteration. Clearly this is the fruit of some Google employee's pet project (what do they call them? 10% projects or something?) and is gaining some attention and traction. In 2006 or so gmail was a pretty straight-forward thing that did everything you were used to doing but better, more cleanly, and more easily.

They've pissed around with the UI ever since then and generally made it into a beast that's less likeable by those who value their email. It might have helped folks that oversubscribed to junk or facebook status updates and didn't know how to create filters to deal with all of it. But to serious emailers the changes were annoyances.

Shout-out, by the way, to Fastmail.com, who does nothing but IMAP and does it right. I don't often use their web interface because I'm a email-client kind of person, but when I do I find it easy to manage and not too "fruity."

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 2, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 17:48 (#2TMV)

The tragedy of gmail is that at first the interface was very good and it's gotten worse with each iteration.

That is the reason why I avoid web services wherever I can. I got my fair share of flame, when I said that I hated this or that new version of interface, for instance /., or sourceforge. 'Conservative', 'mossback', 'stick-in-the-mud'... and worse I have been called. Strangely, I never got a clear answer when I asked how they would like it when I enter their homes while they are away, and redecorate. Paint the wallpapers in a different color, change the carpets, and reorganize their wardrobes and such things. They come home and suddenly everything is different.

A web service, unless I host it myself, never belongs to me. Features can come and go, or get changed. And very often I have the feeling, it has nothing to do with usability, but politics.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 20:17 (#2TNB)

Check out soGo. Self hosted webmail that acts pretty much identically to Thunderbird.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 20:30 (#2TNC)

Thanks, not necessary. I have my own dedicated server. When I use a free mail service, I never use their web interface, but let them forward all incoming mail to this server. On this server I run http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_%28software%29 dovecot, which make my email available via IMAP on my desktops at home. For most people this configuration would be overkill, but I host several git repositories on this server and use it to store backups. The email handling is just a nice additional feature.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 22:18 (#2TNG)

Think you missed my point? SoGO is a particularly decent web mail daemon you run on YOUR server. Like SquirrelMail or Roundcube or Horde but much better.

It's nice for those times you don't have a full client handy. It's a normal FOSS project, not some clingy 3rd party service. But if you don't need it, cool.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 22:48 (#2TNH)

I skimmed through the project page and decided: Overkill for my needs. Agreed, far more powerful than what I have now, but far more powerful means also far more complicated... means higher security risks.
I don't need calendaring or messaging data. A pure email solution via IMAP is perfect for me. Access under Linux: Claws Mail. Under Android: K-9 Mail. Under Windows... erm... don't need mail to start my games.

But I bookmarked the project page. Should I ever need groupware features, I now know it exists. However, should I ever install it, it most likely will be for other people. For me... I deeply distrust such universal-all-in-one-super-duper-everything gadgets. Open source or not.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 23:08 (#2TNK)

Whoops, sorry for double post. It's NOT an all in one solution (like, say, Citadel or Exchange). It builds on several common services such as Dovecot. But I hear you.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-10-24 09:16 (#2TNN)

I'm glad for the post. Half the reason I read sites like this one are the recommendations for projects and solutions I'd been previously unaware of. Glad for the tip.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 23:05 (#2TNJ)

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 2, Informative)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-25 05:08 (#2TPQ)

In 2006 or so gmail was a pretty straight-forward thing that did everything you were used to doing but better, more cleanly, and more easily. They've pissed around with the UI ever since then and generally made it into a beast that's less likeable by those who value their email.

You can get the old Gmail interface back quite easily. Just disable javascript and reload the page.

Click the link that says:

"To use Gmail's basic HTML view, which does not require JavaScript, click here."

Then in the new yellow bar across the top, click:

"Set basic HTML as default view"

All done. Good old plain Gmail, wherever you log-in from, permanently.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 15:15 (#2TMG)

Did you read the article? It doesn't simplify e-mail, so much as it integrates it into your calendar/todo list, adds features for tracking packages you've ordered, notifies you about delays in flights, etc, etc.

It actually could be very useful. I'm sure I'm not the only one that uses my inbox as a (cumbersome) TODO list, and integrating some intelligence could clean-up your e-mail experience, and make it easier to check and follow-up on any bits of information you receive through e-mails.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 18:03 (#2TMW)

Matter of taste. I like my stuff separated. 'Check and follow-up'... I see what you mean, but for me a couple of procmail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procmail) rules, which sort my email into folders, are totally sufficient. Everything in a standard format, so I never have to fear vendor lock-in is extremely important to me. Rule of thumb: If a program changes my mail folder in any way that I cannot open it in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_%28email_client%29 mutt anymore... it is dead to me. Even though I rarely use plain old mutt nowadays.

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 1)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-10-23 15:33 (#2TMH)

Well, if it could automatically associate not obviously associated emails ( not part of the same chain) that would be great. Think of mailing lists. Someone emails the same obscure behavior of a product and your email client finds the related emails automatically. So you can respond back, see this email from a year ago that solved your issue without having to do the search yourself. That would be awesome ( but unfortunately difficult for a machine to do automatically)

Re: Does it really need to be... (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-23 19:12 (#2TMZ)

There was a Bayesian spam filter that as a side benefit was able to do something very much like that. SpamBayes I think?