> There's got to be a special name for this kind of logical fallacy. There also needs to be a Fallacy fallacy: the irrational believe that merely dropping the

> There's got to be a special name for this kind of logical fallacy. There also needs to be a Fallacy fallacy: the irrational believe that merely dropping the "fallacy" moniker is an argument. In this case: Yes, considering there are many hosted email services competing for customers, with quite a lot of variation between "huge web app" and "minimalistic list of links". And considering Google is known to excessively A/B test any change (including more-complex v. just-html interfaces), it's quite valid to conclude that people generally prefer what GMail is doing. GMail even has a fallback html interface it switches to when noticing slowdowns. The number of people keeping that mode on manually (few) is another indicator of people's preferences. > Except we're layering less powerful, less abstracted APIs over an already high-level document model[...] "Abstract" != "good". Abstraction layers can be stupid, or deliberately constricted. They are still, tautologically, by definition, one step more "abstract" than the API they access.