3 ms·

> Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Int

> Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. This alone is the reason I oppose AMP email. I want email to be a simple, static text-based communication platform. None of that full HTML application-stack bullshit.

cromwellian 7y ago
Email already has HTML in it and has for decades, hell, there were startups dedicated to it like Zaplets et al. AMP doesn't enable HTML email, it was already enabled by Outlook 97.
- josteink 7y ago
  But not HTML applications. JavaScript is banned. Dynamic content is banned. This is good. We should aim to keep it this way.
  - cromwellian 7y ago
    Actually, you're wrong. Zaplets made this work somehow, and were funded to the tune of $90+ million in VC money. Perhaps they just used an iframe or <applet>, but never the less, Zaplets offered interactive HTML forms inside of mail that worked in Outlook. (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241f857dc https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241...) AMP Email is largely following what the Outlook 97 client was capable of. There's no apriori reason why a federated messaging system needs to be non-interactive. It's possible to support both immutability and dynamism. You're making assertions that something should be a certain way without actually justifying it. You could at least provide some formal justification, like you want Email to be an immutable ledger or something. But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents.
    - dngray 7y ago
      > But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. Also the things you've mentioned there are different things. XMPP was never as widespread as email and is not in any way related to the other two. I am hoping Matrix picks up here. LISTSERV is simply mailing list software, these do exist today as they did and are used by many open source projects. The most popular one being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Mailman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Mailman USENET, does still exist, particularly for binaries. It's decline was mostly because of the cost to run the services, spam and the fact that smaller web forums were an alternative. > And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents. Not in business it's not, particularly where both parties want to have a conversation and not let those platforms in on the conversation. That is the majority of business and government conversation. Email is not going anywhere.
      - cromwellian 7y ago
        You don't have to explain what those things are, I've been on the internet since the 80s, and my teen years were literally forged on those platforms. Yes, smaller web forums killed USENET, and the reason they did so is that it was far easier to evolve controls for spam, for toxic posters, for adding features like voting, inline images, inline markup, custom headers/landing/etc than it was on a federated system like USENET. When the Web arrived, user expectations in terms of the ease of use and richness of the interface changed, which is exactly what's happening with email. If business really wanted end to end un-eaves-droppable confidentiality they would have mandated S/MIME years ago. The very nature of a store-and-forward protocol without end to end encryption pretty much guarantees you don't have confidentiality unless the entirely of your communication is within your organization, and even then, it's not really secure because most business organizations did not run internal encryption. The number of firms outsourcing to cloud services continues to rise. Yes, Email is not going to die for internal business communication, but it will transform, and interactivity and dynamism are inevitable. Lotus Notes is a great example of this. Email is often used for workflow, for updates of real time information, and spamming people with status messages that link to dashboards is a productivity hit and produces information overload.

cromwellian 7y ago

Email already has HTML in it and has for decades, hell, there were startups dedicated to it like Zaplets et al. AMP doesn't enable HTML email, it was already enabled by Outlook 97.

josteink 7y ago
But not HTML applications. JavaScript is banned. Dynamic content is banned. This is good. We should aim to keep it this way.
- cromwellian 7y ago
  Actually, you're wrong. Zaplets made this work somehow, and were funded to the tune of $90+ million in VC money. Perhaps they just used an iframe or <applet>, but never the less, Zaplets offered interactive HTML forms inside of mail that worked in Outlook. (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241f857dc https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241...) AMP Email is largely following what the Outlook 97 client was capable of. There's no apriori reason why a federated messaging system needs to be non-interactive. It's possible to support both immutability and dynamism. You're making assertions that something should be a certain way without actually justifying it. You could at least provide some formal justification, like you want Email to be an immutable ledger or something. But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents.
  - dngray 7y ago
    > But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. Also the things you've mentioned there are different things. XMPP was never as widespread as email and is not in any way related to the other two. I am hoping Matrix picks up here. LISTSERV is simply mailing list software, these do exist today as they did and are used by many open source projects. The most popular one being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Mailman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Mailman USENET, does still exist, particularly for binaries. It's decline was mostly because of the cost to run the services, spam and the fact that smaller web forums were an alternative. > And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents. Not in business it's not, particularly where both parties want to have a conversation and not let those platforms in on the conversation. That is the majority of business and government conversation. Email is not going anywhere.
    - cromwellian 7y ago
      You don't have to explain what those things are, I've been on the internet since the 80s, and my teen years were literally forged on those platforms. Yes, smaller web forums killed USENET, and the reason they did so is that it was far easier to evolve controls for spam, for toxic posters, for adding features like voting, inline images, inline markup, custom headers/landing/etc than it was on a federated system like USENET. When the Web arrived, user expectations in terms of the ease of use and richness of the interface changed, which is exactly what's happening with email. If business really wanted end to end un-eaves-droppable confidentiality they would have mandated S/MIME years ago. The very nature of a store-and-forward protocol without end to end encryption pretty much guarantees you don't have confidentiality unless the entirely of your communication is within your organization, and even then, it's not really secure because most business organizations did not run internal encryption. The number of firms outsourcing to cloud services continues to rise. Yes, Email is not going to die for internal business communication, but it will transform, and interactivity and dynamism are inevitable. Lotus Notes is a great example of this. Email is often used for workflow, for updates of real time information, and spamming people with status messages that link to dashboards is a productivity hit and produces information overload.