MBoffin.com

Something witty this way comes.

Gmail

How well do you think this will do?

Replies

I know I'll sure as heck sign up as soon as it's available. I currently use hotmail, and if I'm going to have to stare at banner ads etc., it might as well be something there's some faint chance I'd be interested in it, rather than stupid ads for dating services (I'm married), bad loans (already have more than I need), credit cards (" "), or similar stuff.

The main thing I'd be interested in knowing is whether they allow you to attach and recieve larger files than other free mail services. Juno allows 2mb attachments, hotmail only does 1mb. If I want to send a friend a zipped folder of photos or whatever, I almost invariably end up having to mooch ftp space off of someone because my mail gateway just won't handle a 3 or 4 mb file.
Wirehead - Mar 31, 2004 @ 9:33 PM - Permanent Link
I am currently at an Advanced Search Engines Workskop Seminar at Disney World, so I find this particularlly interesting.

I'm just wondering if there is any coincidence to the fact the Google press release is dated April 1st...
Aesopian - Apr 1, 2004 @ 5:36 AM - Permanent Link
Joe and I were pondering the same question last night.

If it IS a fake, I suspect it will end up being real eventually (a la the black Amex card), simply because there's a demand for an email service that actually WORKS and is USEFUL
Wirehead - Apr 1, 2004 @ 6:19 AM - Permanent Link
Also, if it is faked, they duped the New York Times, News.com, SearchEngineWatch.com and some other big boys.
Aesopian - Apr 1, 2004 @ 6:22 AM - Permanent Link
I think it's great. I could use yet another email address, I'm sure.
rnewhouse - Apr 1, 2004 @ 10:12 AM - Permanent Link

simply because there's a demand for an email service that actually WORKS and is USEFUL


I haven't had any trouble getting free email services to WORK and be USEFUL.
DataBind() - Apr 1, 2004 @ 11:09 AM - Permanent Link
Hotmail WORKS and is USEFUL for me so far. I manage to keep below 2MB with ease.
Aesopian - Apr 1, 2004 @ 11:39 AM - Permanent Link
I have no problem with STORAGE. My utilization is about 9% average. I'm interested in larger ATTACHMENTS.

Databind(): I should have said, "...that work BETTER and are MORE USEFUL.". In other words. improvement. I'd really like to see the ability to send and recieve somewhat larger files. These days a 1mb attachment limit is fairly cheesy - a single 3mp camera photo often won't fit.
Wirehead - Apr 1, 2004 @ 2:00 PM - Permanent Link
I've never needed that much in an attachment, but I also never send 3 mb photos. You can make them smaller, you know....
DataBind() - Apr 1, 2004 @ 4:38 PM - Permanent Link
Yeah, but what's the point of having a high-quality digital camera if the first thing you do is turn it into a 640x480 jpg?

Also, I don't want to have to mess with converting files to smaller formats just to be able to send 'em to a buddy.

Wirehead - Apr 1, 2004 @ 4:55 PM - Permanent Link
Yahoo e-mail offers 6 mb of storage. I don't know what size attachments. I mostly use my e-mail account at work, and can send large attachments. Since my work involves graphic design, I'm often needing to send 3 mb or larger photos. It is definitely nice. What sucks is trying to send something to someone with hotmail. You have to make it puny!

I agree with Wirehead--if you have a nice camera, you don't want to resize it down a bunch. BUT, it is a free service. Realize that if you wanted to send a photo in the mail, it would cost $0.37 or more, if it was bigger or you had cardboard, etc, protecting the photo. I'm not sure what you get by paying for the upgraded versions of these e-mail services, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have to pay to e-mail larger files using someone else's server.
lidge_34 - Apr 1, 2004 @ 5:07 PM - Permanent Link
I only care about the nice quality digital pics when I am printing them out for memories or whatever -- I've never had to worry about having high-quality pics when I'm just showing a picture of a deep-fried twinkie to a buddy via email.
DataBind() - Apr 1, 2004 @ 8:33 PM - Permanent Link
I was wondering too about the April 1st as the date of the story, but I think it's for real. I did some math and realized that if they did take over the free email market (which would involve taking more than Yahoo's 52.6 million users away), that would mean they would serve over 52.6 million gigs. Of course not at once, but if every one fills up their space, pretty soon they'll have a lot of used space. I wonder how good their SPAM protection will be because you can bet your bottom dollar that when everybody's @google.com or whatever the extension is, SPAMmers will bombard that gig of space. How many terrabyte drives would that be? How much would that cost? How does Google make money anyway? Just some thoughts.
derekz - Apr 1, 2004 @ 9:46 PM - Permanent Link
But Jonathan Rosenberg, vice president of the products group at Google, said the Gmail announcement was legitimate. He did concede that the company did get caught up in the spirit of April Fool's Day in its press release.

From: http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/01/technology/google_email/index.htm
derekz - Apr 1, 2004 @ 10:03 PM - Permanent Link
I have no problem with paying for a service that I consider valuable (but I sure won't protest getting it free legally). I've looked at the "for pay" sections of Juno, Yahoo, and Hotmail, and they primarily give you more storage, which I don't care too much about. The attachment limit is what I am more interested in. I am also curious about whether the google 1gb thing is just for EMAIL that you have sent and recieved through their portal, or if you can use it for file storage as well.

If it's only email, I suspect they won't run into problems with people filling up the 1gb very fast. Also, I'd imagine that the 1gb limit is "1gb total size", as opposed to the actual size of the file stored on the server. We all know how well text compresses - I wouldn't be surprised if they can get 1gb of (mostly text) emails down to 100mb or less. There will be a few people who have a lot of attached files, photos, or whatever, but I'd bet they'll be a minority.

RE: where do you get the storage space...well, you can get a 400gb drive for $300 these days. When you're Google, picking up a couple hundred of those and putting them in a server farm isn't that big of a deal, particularly considering the profit potential of having 50 or 60 million people getting targeted advertising each day (this is how Google makes money - you search for "tractor" and they show you ads about "John Deere" and "International Harvester" - they will apply the same tactics to email - you get an email with the words "RAM" and "CPU" and they give you banner ads from Newegg or something while you read the email).

Databind(): Low-res pics of a deep fried twinkie just DO NOT convey the full sense of the thing. Until you've seen one at 1600x1200 uncompressed, you haven't really seen one.
Wirehead - Apr 2, 2004 @ 12:15 PM - Permanent Link
Is anyone concerned with the way they reportedly will be attaching advertisements to emails based on the content of the email? For example, if your buddy emails you about deep fried twinkies, you may see an ad for deep fried cheez curds.

Does this rub anyone the wrong way (besides me)?

I experience a phenomenon I will call a "marketing moment" whenever I go to the grocery store and buy something like baby food and when they hand you the receipt, they also hand you these printed out coupons for diapers or something. (They know they can make money off both ends!) And while this might be convenient for some, it makes me stop and remember that somebody in marketing is watching. But overall, I don't feel it is an invasion of my privacy.

But having someone in marketing watching my email would really creep me out. Besides the privacy concerns, I can imagine some embarassing situations. Maybe I email my mother-in-law, and mention that the neighbor kids left "skid marks" on the driveway with their bike tires. Then she gets the email, and there is an ad for Depends attached. Thanks a lot!

Sorry for all the scatological references. But while I am at it, let me get this straight. The coffee thing is NOT beneficial? ;)
peterman - Apr 5, 2004 @ 10:45 AM - Permanent Link

Post a Reply

Before you may post, you need to either log in or sign up.