3 ms·

When GMail launched in 2004, it took one step forward and 10 steps backwards from the mail application I was using. Even today, the major features GMail is rele

by revorad 17y ago

When GMail launched in 2004, it took one step forward and 10 steps backwards from the mail application I was using. Even today, the major features GMail is releasing are simply trying to match the features I've had on the desktop for years. Sachin, isn't that true about Posterous too? While I agree with the points you make about the weakness of the web, you are missing one key point. The web makes it possible for the end user to stop thinking about the OS and installing stuff. If we had to move to the model you are suggesting, people would have to start choosing browsers. It would be sad if I couldn't use Posterous because it doesn't work on the Ubuntu version of Firefox. Besides, considering most people don't even know what a browser is, why would you want to make them install 5 different ones? It will only bring back the IT department.

a4agarwal 17y ago
When we launched posterous in 2008, yes it was missing a bunch of features. But look at us now (or actually, in a month, we have a lot of stuff about to launch). We'll have everything all other blog platforms have, and more. But SIX YEARS after gmail's launch, they can't say the same. For Posterous, and any other web app, we'd have to decide the tradeoff. If we focused on one browser, could we add enough value to that experience that it's worth dropping support for Ubuntu Firefox? Each browser and each developer should be able to decide this, instead of being slowed down by the platform as a whole.
- revorad 17y ago
  Come on, are you really suggesting that gmail didn't add any value and is just playing catch up with old email software? Free unlimited email storage? Auto-saving and suggesting contacts? Threaded email conversations? Big attachments? AJAX? Email search that works? Each browser and each developer should be able to decide this, instead of being slowed down by the platform as a whole. You know you do have the freedom to pick one browser. But you won't because it makes no business sense, unless you are talking about innovation in a vacuum. We are re-inventing the wheel with the web to some extent. But it is already beginning to get very good very fast and Posterous is a good parallel of that phenomenon in the blogging world.
  - SomeCallMeTim 17y ago
    I would go farther and suggest that GMail was designed with the intention of making the desktop version of email obsolete. They added in some desktop features primarily (IMHO) to support users who were so ingrained in their usage patterns that they couldn't see that really good search was actually BETTER than putting your email into folders. Desktop apps are only just beginning to catch up with faster search--and they still don't do it as well as Google.
- wwortiz 17y ago
  If you really wanted to head your advice you could focus on one single browser that works on all operating systems and have your users download that as their app.
- mikeryan 17y ago
  So can you tell me which email client out there works as consistently same on Linux, Mac and Windows as Gmail does?
lkozma 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- revorad 17y ago
  I feared my comment would come across as a disguised ad hominem attack (thanks I didn't know there was a name for that!). But if you read the whole comment, it should be obvious that it's not in fact Tu quoque because I do address Sachin's position. I used Posterous as an example to argue that people don't make software just to innovate; there are other things to consider such as market trends and user needs.
  - lkozma 17y ago
    You are right, I don't think it was an ad hominem, besides you made a valid point about Posterous. I just read the wiki stuff today and couldn't resist.

by revorad 17y ago

a4agarwal 17y ago

When we launched posterous in 2008, yes it was missing a bunch of features. But look at us now (or actually, in a month, we have a lot of stuff about to launch). We'll have everything all other blog platforms have, and more. But SIX YEARS after gmail's launch, they can't say the same. For Posterous, and any other web app, we'd have to decide the tradeoff. If we focused on one browser, could we add enough value to that experience that it's worth dropping support for Ubuntu Firefox? Each browser and each developer should be able to decide this, instead of being slowed down by the platform as a whole.

revorad 17y ago
Come on, are you really suggesting that gmail didn't add any value and is just playing catch up with old email software? Free unlimited email storage? Auto-saving and suggesting contacts? Threaded email conversations? Big attachments? AJAX? Email search that works? Each browser and each developer should be able to decide this, instead of being slowed down by the platform as a whole. You know you do have the freedom to pick one browser. But you won't because it makes no business sense, unless you are talking about innovation in a vacuum. We are re-inventing the wheel with the web to some extent. But it is already beginning to get very good very fast and Posterous is a good parallel of that phenomenon in the blogging world.
- SomeCallMeTim 17y ago
  I would go farther and suggest that GMail was designed with the intention of making the desktop version of email obsolete. They added in some desktop features primarily (IMHO) to support users who were so ingrained in their usage patterns that they couldn't see that really good search was actually BETTER than putting your email into folders. Desktop apps are only just beginning to catch up with faster search--and they still don't do it as well as Google.
wwortiz 17y ago
If you really wanted to head your advice you could focus on one single browser that works on all operating systems and have your users download that as their app.
mikeryan 17y ago
So can you tell me which email client out there works as consistently same on Linux, Mac and Windows as Gmail does?

lkozma 17y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

revorad 17y ago
I feared my comment would come across as a disguised ad hominem attack (thanks I didn't know there was a name for that!). But if you read the whole comment, it should be obvious that it's not in fact Tu quoque because I do address Sachin's position. I used Posterous as an example to argue that people don't make software just to innovate; there are other things to consider such as market trends and user needs.
- lkozma 17y ago
  You are right, I don't think it was an ad hominem, besides you made a valid point about Posterous. I just read the wiki stuff today and couldn't resist.