6 ms·
The difference is that Gmail was way better than its competitors at the time. The spam filter alone was a huge sell. edit: the 1GB mailbox !
by bibinou 7y ago
The difference is that Gmail was way better than its competitors at the time. The spam filter alone was a huge sell.
edit: the 1GB mailbox !
- taneq 7y agoYeah, back then Hotmail gave you something like 10MB and everyone literally thought 1GB was an April Fools' Day hoax. If Stadia was literally 100x better than the nearest competition while still having a far superior user experience then they wouldn't be having any trouble.
- autokad 7y agothe fact that it didnt catch on then says it was not better than its competitors. hotmail had that nice tie in with messenger, which was a huge plus other emails had the ability to delete email google tried to use email for ads which users found creepy google had an invite system that made signing up difficult etc etc
- BigBubbleButt 7y agoAre you saying Gmail didn't catch on? That's like saying nobody buys an Android phone. Gmail is the #1 email provider in the world and Android is the #1 mobile OS in the world.
- scarface74 7y agoYeah but it isn’t very profitable in the grand scheme of things. It came out in the Oracle trial that Google had only made around $23 billion in profit from Android from inception until around 2016. They pay Apple around $8 billion a year to be the default search. Apple has made more from Google in mobile than Google has made from Android.
- autokad 7y agoIt didnt catch on till 2012. It was also gmail that caused a change in public perception of google
- darkwater 7y agoPlus, they were not yet notorious for killing services after a few years. It's becoming a self-fulfilled prophecy with newer Google products that need a critical mass to take off.
- htrp 7y agoblame the new era of fiscal discipline at google. products have to make an appreciable difference in the bottom line