13 ms·
What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
- claudius 13y agoEverybody knows that SMTP is old, inefficient (hey, it’s nearly plain-text!), insecure, diversified (so many different servers to choose from!) and generally just bad. Clearly a closed web interface that only runs in Chrome would be much better for everyone! Then people could always be sure with whom they communicate, nobody could hack or social-engineer their way into other accounts, and everyone would have to follow The Rules or they’ll have their account closed for good.
- charlesjshort 13y agoBill Gates is a goy so he can not be king of the internet. But Google would make a good king, so just bow down.
- laurentb 13y agowtf is that supposed to mean?
- charlesjshort 13y agoThis a reference to the "Protocols."
- laumars 13y agoSMTP is worse than plain text. It's plain text and base64 (which increases file sizes by ~30%). It's a horrid protocol, but sadly it's what we're currently stuck with. But this is all moot as the article is about XMPP, WebDav and RSS. The SMTP headline is nothing more than clickbait.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y agoPeople keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? And what is wrong with SMTP? Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. And "there are multiple different implementations" is a pretty poor justification, as a SMTP replacement would likely have the same issue (or worse).
- laumars 13y ago> People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? Well it's not exactly secure, for one thing. > Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP. > People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. Actually I have given a long list of reasons every time I've complained about SMTP[1][2] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510910 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297472
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago>Well it's not exactly secure, for one thing. No more or less secure than HTTP/HTTPS. In fact exactly as secure as... >base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Transfer-Encoding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Transfer-Encoding >Actually I have given a long list of reasons every time I've complained about SMTP >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297472 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297472 Your list is full of misinformation. - Base64 thing is nonsense. As already stated SMTP supports binary and has for a long time. - SMTPS is fairly well supported. In fact I currently connect to nothing which lacks it, and my email client auto-selects it when setting up new connections. Most of the hosts as far as I know support SMTPS out-of-the-box. - SMTP reply codes are standardised (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1893.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1893.txt) - HTML is standardised. - SMTP is not designed to be real-time. That is what IM is designed to provide.
- stefantalpalaru 13y agowoosh!
- fulafel 13y agoASCII also increases "file size" by about 30% (using 8 bits per character where 6 would suffice). A better optimization than diligent bit-packing is a stateful compression system such as deflate. In addition to doing real compression, it will take care of any wasted bits in ASCII andd Base64 (latter being a MIME feature btw, not SMTP). I don't know if people usually run SMTP with TLS compression enabled - if not they probably aren't too worried about the wasted bits.
- nollidge 13y agoSarcasm is clickbait now?
- wtbob 13y ago> But this is all moot as the article is about XMPP, WebDav and RSS. The SMTP headline is nothing more than clickbait. Not really. SMTP derives most of its utility from federation, and XMPP could have done the same. Of course, this is nothing new: NNTP was replaced by a million forums, XMPP federation never really took hold, and no doubt someday mail federation will die too. It's a crying shame, it really is.
- ajross 13y agoArrgh. Title is total link bait. There is no news about SMTP here. The linked blog post is whining about XMPP, which is not being disabled. Apparently the author is a user of "XMPP Federation" (the ability to link XMPP servers together a-la IRC), which is also not being disabled. But apparently it might be someday, as the new Hangouts stuff won't support it. So how did we get form "can't talk to your Hangout via an XMPP client" to "Google will disable SMTP"? Really folks, this site used to be better about this stuff...
- Dylan16807 13y ago1. Looking at the other threads I can't quite get a straight answer on XMPP, but it seems to be entirely disabled for the "new communications product called Hangouts" (new??), but this is not just about federation. 2. claudius is very clearly explaining why google SHOULD disable SMTP. Nobody has seriously suggested they would; you might need to recalibrate your satire detector. Also claudius gave several reasons that apply equally to XMPP and SMTP to be extra helpful. :)
- andrewguenther 13y agoIt is not available in Hangouts, but it will continue to be supported "for the foreseeable future" in GTalk.
- tankenmate 13y agoExcept that GTalk is now being deprecated on Android and being replaced with the new version of Hangouts...
- fdr_cs 13y agoJust like reader, right ?
- duaneb 13y agoI don't think they would kill SMTP, but I also didn't think they would kill CalDav.
- jpswade 13y agoDon't forget, they tried "open" with Google Wave, which was a total flop. Developers did not buy into it. You can't expect to have it both ways, especially since Apple has proven that a closed infrastructure (walled garden) works.
- kevingadd 13y agoOpenness was not the only thing wrong with Google Wave.
- nwh 13y agoIt might have been the most open platform in the world, but I'm still not sure what Wave was actually for.
- samastur 13y agoBecause every open project that fails means that was the reason why it happened so all will? Wave had lots of problems one of which was that they gave up on it fairly quickly.
- Turing_Machine 13y agoThey've tried "closed" with Google+, which is also a total flop.
- philwelch 13y agoYes, but they haven't realized that yet!
- wluu 13y agoI think the App Store does well on ios because it's the only way to load apps onto those devices, but I don't think it works as well on OS X. (I've found that most apps I install on my mbp aren't from the App Store). I suppose, for everyday consumers (ie: less tech savvy), the experience may be different. Anyway, I think developers will go where they think it's cool. And also, they'll go where they can get the most market share (and hence higher ROI potential). If that were to be an open platform, then so be it. In this case, it's not so open.
- reidrac 13y agoCan someone confirm Google is killing XMPP and its server-to-server federation? The Verge says Hangouts is not using XMPP but does it mean that XMPP (Google Talk) is definitely going away?
- eschnou 13y agoWell, the quote from The Verge is the following: "Singhal says Google had to make the difficult decision to drop the very 'open' XMPP standard that it helped pioneer."
- reidrac 13y agoThat's for the new Hangouts service. If you can keep using XMPP with your Gmail account, then it's not that terrible. I don't know if it's a forced replacement. We may need to wait for Google's announcement.
- Shooti 13y ago"Not federated support, but supports interop with XMPP clients. Meaning you can continue to use XMPP clients to log in to Google Talk and those messages will interop with folks on Hangouts." https://plus.google.com/107968525907303243288/posts/HFe3W7A9Dor https://plus.google.com/107968525907303243288/posts/HFe3W7A9... So Google Talk will continue to live on (which allows them to implement some sort of server side functionality which converts a Gtalk message to a Hangout message when both members have activated Hangouts), it's just not actively being worked on. So really the only effective change is the Chrome extension and Android apps have been replaced so you have to use a 3rd party Jabber client if you do want to use GTalk on those platforms.
- kentrado 13y agoEmbrace, extend, extinguish.
- sgoody 13y agoI'm pretty disappointed by the recent dropping of standards that Google has been doing. I'm quite a sceptical person and I've never been a fan of any big corp, but Google has been the one that I've trusted my data in the most and that I've been happiest with. I still trust them with some of my data, but I'm rapidly losing faith in them and in fact I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... and I'd consider myself a one-time Microsoft hater, but I think they've turned things around. The only reason I'm still with them for email/calendars is that they're just so very very good. But they're privacy policies for GDrive scare me, so I don't use that. Frankly though, I'm starting to think that my data and services would be better off with Microsoft now...
- claudius 13y agoI was a Microsoft hater when I was 15, too, but at least Microsoft makes their money by selling Windows, Office and the like rather than by selling my data. So even if their ‘cloud services’ such as Outlook.com are ad-supported in some way, at least they don’t completely rely on that, and I still have the choice whether to use Windows or not – all their services run just fine in Opera on Debian, too.
- alec 13y agoGoogle does not sell your data. http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/
- sbuk 13y agoNo, but they monetize that data in other ways. Some say it's not the same thing, I disagree. Ultimately, it's at your discretion, but they could very easily change that policy.
- esolyt 13y ago>I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... I am disappointed too. But why is Microsoft more open? Does Microsoft have an open messaging protocol that I don't know of? Or an open source operating system? Or an open source browser? The last I checked, they were forcing manufacturers to ship computers with locked down bootloaders so you can't install your own operating system. >But they're privacy policies for GDrive scare me, so I don't use that. Can you clarify exactly what point in the privacy policy you are talking about?
- pjmlp 13y agoYouth geeks are just discovering that corporations are all alike. Nothing that the older timers don't already know since the mainframe days. Google is just arriving to the point where the shareholders have more to say than whatever a few geeks scattered around the world might think.
- RexRollman 13y agoWell put, which is why I have reverted to using Google solely for search.
- WA 13y agoWell put, which is why I never used Google for anything except search to begin with.
- christianmann 13y agoYou have a gmail address listed in your profile.
- WA 13y agoThat's a spam address.
- RestlessMind 13y agoWhich smartphone do you use?
- claudius 13y agoN9.
- RexRollman 13y agoI use a dumb phone. I don't have a personal need for anything more.
- zimbatm 13y agoWell it's quite clear that for Google, Google+ is where all the communication should be going on and Gmail is the legacy.
- yanw 13y agoHyperbole aside (they won’t drop SMTP) that is a very narrow and unfair view on the situation, they at least tried for years to make it work with these standards and failed. They were obviously the last ones doing so, and this new approach is mainly about modernising their infrastructure. Is there anyone else of any consequence out there who is building these sorts of messaging apps on top of XMPP? Google was the last one standing, and it just didn't work out. And why cherry pick “standards”? how about web standard? Chromium is a very big commitment to them. Edit: I should be more specific as I meant a federated implementation of XMPP.
- gnoway 13y agoOther than a basic understanding of what it is, I don't know anything about XMPP. What's wrong with it? Or, more specifically, what does it do poorly that other things have eclipsed?
- claudius 13y agoIt is federated in such a way that it is sometimes difficult to establish new features, as there are a multitude of servers and clients, which would all have to support said new features for them to stick. Some see that as an advantage, but it definitely doesn’t help ‘innovate’ and re-invent the wheel every other month. GPG encryption, for example, while standardised in XEP-something, is still not really supported in widely available clients. OTR encryption is more of a layer atop the actual protocol and hence somewhat inelegant (and also not that widely available). Also it’s XML-based, which could be argued is even worse than base64, but that should be a rather small concern given how popular JSON and the likes are nowadays.
- leoc 13y agoBut Google, as a wealthy company and the controller of such a big chunk of the XMPP user base, was (maybe uniquely) in a good position to overcome these problems. It could have established a de facto standard set of supported features, and maybe pushed out some code to help clients implement awkward bits of it.
- 13y ago
- Uchikoma 13y agoGoogle is the new Microsoft. Nothing new. Move on.
- RestlessMind 13y agoWho is the new Google then?
- pfortuny 13y agoYes, something like this: "Our users do not feel the need for SMTP so much as to make it profitable, we are pursuing other options, hence our SMTP servers will be closed down in 3 months' time. You can continue communicating using Google+ or Gmail." Honestly, they look very much like losing some real-world perspective. I mean real as in 'the table holding my keyboard'.
- snaky 13y agoIf that was "Our users do not feel the need for Gmail so much as to make it profitable, we are pursuing other options, hence our GMail servers will be closed down in 3 months' time. You can continue communicating using Google+." I'd say yeah, they are losing some real-world perspective.
- human_error 13y agoDon't give them ideas!
- RLN 13y agoI have been trying to move away from Google services for a long time, unfortunately it is very tightly integrated in my life (Gmail, Android etc.) and I am both lazy and loath to spend money. Google is fine for now but I won't hesitate to jump ship if I find myself looking at better options.
- unhammer 13y agoYou don't have to spend very _much_ money. I pay Fastmail $40 a year for 10GB ad-free IMAP+webmail (+2GB file storage that I never use, but I guess that's nice too), I find that very reasonable. It works great with K9-mail on Android (and any IMAP mail client I should think). I have OwnCloud on my home server with a free SSL cert from StartSSL (you need a domain though if you want to use StartSSL, but that shouldn't cost you much). This gives me contacts and a calendar, which I sync to my Android phone (I also sync the owncloud calendar to my Emacs orgmode files over caldav, giving me two-way sync between Emacs and Android; it's also possible to sync carddav contacts into Emacs, but I haven't tried that yet). OwnCloud also has a code editor with syntax highlighting, but it's no Google Docs killer yet (but then, I prefer writing TeX with Emacs anyway). Once it's up and running, it's just as featureful as the Gmail+Google Contacts+Google Calendar combo. If you have android, you do need a Google account for downloading from the Play store, but 1) you can use a throwaway account for that 2) there's also f-droid and other alternative stores. I switched to Gnus+Gwene for RSS feeds, but I wouldn't recommend that unless you really like Emacs. In any case, Google Reader is dead and new alternatives are showing up everywhere. I use Firefox sync instead of Chromium. Apparantly owncloud can work as an FF sync server, but I haven't tried that yet. DuckDuckGo fills most of my search needs better than Google ever did, though I do use its !scholar and !i keywords which redirect me back to Google's Scholar, Image searches. It is possible to wean yourself off Google, and even third-party control of your data in general, but it takes a bit of effort. I find it rewarding though :)
- recoiledsnake 13y agoWait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outlook.com users to chat with Gtalk friends and is rolling out that feature? Am I right? Someone tell me I am wrong! That sounds unbelievable, coming from the supposedly open company even though it's coming on the heels of them trying lock out millions of Windows Phone users from Youtube by sending a C&D takedown on the app. I guess open standards don't work when you're the guy trying to lock in users. If Google had a lock-in on Office products, looks like they will ditch "open data" and "open standards" in a heartbeat. They should change their policy to "open when it's convenient for us to flog it for PR purposes, else closed, oh and please store all your office documents on our cloud, we make it really convenient.". This is not Open vs. Closed anymore, this is Corporations vs. Individuals, except for Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches. And Web DRM? Of course it's coming because IE, Chrome and Safari are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with th h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google said it would drop H.264 from Chrome but did not and Mozilla was left holding the short end of the stick and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves. I can picture Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Netflix etc executives sitting at a bar and giving toast to each other and laughing while we whine and debate fruitlessly with vitriol on these forums. All their stock valuations are up recently!
- VikingCoder 13y agoSo, to be clear, Google is supposed to make video chat with groups of people, recording to YouTube, desktop sharing, and Google Docs live editing work with XMPP? Or else they're evil?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- thoughtcriminal 13y agoStop relying on Google for everything. Stop building things on Google. No company should have such a big impact on your life and society as a whole. Several months ago I moved everything to the Microsoft ecosystem. In some ways its trading one taskmaster for another, but if we don't exercise our freedom of choice in the marketplace we soon won't have a choice.
- virtuz 13y ago> No company should have such a big impact on your life > Several months ago I moved everything to the Microsoft ecosystem. Oh yeah?
- wtetzner 13y ago> No company should have such a big impact on your life > Several months ago I moved everything to the Microsoft ecosystem. So now Microsoft has such a big impact on your life? Wouldn't it make more sense to spread things out over a variety of services?
- thoughtcriminal 13y agoWouldn't it make more sense to spread things out over a variety of services? For reasons of workflow efficiency, no.
- wtetzner 13y agoYou're right, but that conflicts with "No company should have such a big impact on your life."
- leephillips 13y agoGoogle never had SMTP support. They run services that look like and advertise themselves as SMTP but violate the parts of the relevant RFPs that they don't find convenient: http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/ http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/
- bjourne 13y agoThey are even worse when it comes to IMAP. So if you have a sizable gmail account it is virtually impossible to switch to another client because gmail's labels doesn't at all match how IMAP folders behave. But it is hard to complain about a free service and it's quite possible that they couldn't have implemented all gmails features the way they did if they stuck to the IMAP standard.
- markus2012 13y ago1. Google creates a service and gives it away for free. 2. Most alternative providers of the service die. The only ones that still provide the service must also give it away for free and leverage the service in some other way. 3. Google kills service. Someone might try to fill the void, but why would they? Google might just provide the service again for free. I wonder how much of the economy has been lost by giving away services for free. There's something wrong with the model where you can give something away for free so you can learn more about them to serve ads. I remember a time when a certain government would buy a factory in another country, decrease prices to destroy all of the local competition and then lay off all of the factory workers and shut the factory down. Interesting times for companies like Google.
- snaky 13y agoThere's something wrong with the model where you can give something away for free so you can learn more about them to serve ads There's nothing wrong with the model while Google or another corp do it for their own money (unlike gov.). People are freely and willingly agree to see the ads in exchange to using free services. If you think they all wrong, that's just your personal opinion.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago> If you think [X], that's just your personal opinion. <meta> You're saying "I don't trust your opinion" without any justification beyond asserting that personal opinions have low status. If you suspect Markus can't back his claims up, then ask him to. Also remember that if you hold a contrary opinion, then one of you two (possibly both) is necessarily wrong as a simple matter of fact. </meta> When Markus said "there's something wrong with X", I guess he's actually saying "X does harm". In the case of Gmail, I'm inclined to believe that it does harm: better brain hacking (ads) through breaches of privacy —Google is effectively reading your mail. Also the "destroying the economy" effect may be quite real, though I think it's probably limited to short term damages. > People are freely and willingly agree to […]. You're assuming people are rational. They're not. People freely and willingly agree to bamboozle themselves all the time, sometimes creating a network effect that will make it easier for more people to bamboozle themselves. Some people gamble too much and owe money to a Mafioso. Others join the Scientology. Or start doing drugs in a moment of weakness. Or use proprietary software, and eventually lose data. Etc, etc. About the specific case of "cloud" centralized services (web mail, video streaming, blogs, social networks…), the main harm is a progressive loss of privacy, and increased dependence. I think it all stemmed from the thought that people are consumers, not creators. Technically this got translated by "people hardly need to upload". Hence the 'A' in "ADSL". Symmetry was sacrificed at the altar of download rate. Since then, any hope to have a decent server at home was basically crushed. Some providers even prevent you to host a server, or to send e-mail (they typically force you to go through their crappy, rate-limited relays). Anyway, people did create. They wrote. They made videos. They shared their life with friends. And they continued to send e-mail. Well, the only practical solution to do all that was to use convenient centralized services. No way any given person would have enough bandwidth to host one's popular video. So it all goes to YouTube, creating a serious imbalance in the data transfer rates that makes some network operators uneasy. Oh, there's an exception: Bit-torrent. It is an incredibly convenient and scalable way to share big files on the internet. And it's quite popular. Alas, because of asymmetric bandwidth, it doesn't work nearly as well as it should. Which is basically why we used MegaUpload —until "Big IP" shut it down. With symmetric bandwidth, it would have had no use, and Big IP couldn't have annoyed so many people. We could have had symmetric bandwidth, convenient servers at home and all the privacy and independence that they can give us. However the market, people's preference for short term convenience, and network effects conspired against it. And the worse is, it works even if each individual choice is rational. Take the web mails: it could be rational for you to use it, but then, you participate in a network effect that get people to only accept email from the big players. This has already started: mails sent from home are often dismissed as spam right away. Most such mail is spam, but the (possibly rational) rejection is hurting the legitimate users.
- Semaphor 13y agoOkay, I'm slightly confused.Can someone please confirm if the following still works: I'm logged into G+ I'm logged into GTalk with a Jabber client. Someone messages me using the google web interface. I get the message in my Jabber client.
- Zikes 13y agoIn my experience, you get the message in both the Jabber client and Hangout.
- Pxtl 13y agoNo SMS support, no XMPP support. The new "Google Hangouts" messenger will be the next Google+/Buzz.
- tomrod 13y agoDoes this mean I'll need to leave pidgin/finch?
- lettergram 13y agoThey are trying to grab more of the market by making Apple/Microsoft suffer (mostly Microsoft), welcome to the world of business. Good for them.
- rietta 13y agoI am not 100% certain I understand the difference between XMPP support and XMPP federation support. I assume though if they are dropping the support to route between chat providers than my websites' Zopim chat widget that I use for live support will no longer be able to talk with my Google Talk and thus I will no longer be able to text chat with customers on my websites through my Android-based smart phone. If so, that's a real bummer.
- Aloha 13y agoI'm not seeing in the link about them dropping XMPP support, not in the source link the author links to. I see them not building XMPP support into hangouts, but its not the same thing, hangouts are not an IM thing, they are a web conferencing thing.
- DanI-S 13y agoJust because something is Open doesn't mean it is worth supporting when most people don't care about or use it anymore. Web Search Interest for RSS; down 78% from its peak in 2006: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=RSS http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=RSS Web Search Interest for XMPP; down 33% from its peak in 2010: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=XMPP http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=XMPP As Bob Dylan once said: the times, they are a-changin'.
- ernesth 13y agoAnd with SMTP down 80% from its top in 2004 or imap down 58%, the question of the op should seem perfectly legitimate to you.
- DanI-S 13y agoClearly not, since SMTP and IMAP are still in far greater use than RSS and XMPP ever were. But do you think that question will never be legitimate? Will we still be using SMTP in 2113? Google is planning to be around for a long time. What percentage of the resources of your organization do you devote to supporting old technologies in limited use?
- ernesth 13y agoOf course, IMAP and SMTP might be replaced by better protocols in the future (as POP3 was). However, my point was that the fact that the search trend for a protocol is downhill does not mean it is no longer used and should be scrapped. I argue that XMPP is in wider use than it has ever been. And that RSS has not been replaced by anything yet. Hence stopping their support in favour of a locked proprietary platform is bad and explaining this move by google trends is absurd.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- tomkarlo 13y agoThis is the slippery slope fallacy. Don't fall into actually arguing for or against it. The NRA does the same thing when it claims all gun rules lead to a gun ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- Systemic33 13y agoGrabs popcorn I'm seriously just waiting for the anti-trust cases to roll in. Isn't this just like the 90's with Microsoft? Same shit, different names.
- jkn 13y agoThis is a good summary of a sad trend at Google. They fall from high, so we feel it unusually strongly. I still hope these are defensive moves as Google reacts to perceived threats from Facebook and others. I still hope they will eventually open up Google+ for interoperability. It is good that people keep the pressure on Google regarding openness, it gives weight to the voice of the many employees there who want to do the right thing.
- recoiledsnake 13y agoThis HN submission is getting heavily flagged. Stay classy HN, 12 of the top 32 links were Google related yesterday, must you flag articles that are critical Google? http://hnrankings.info/5717995/ http://hnrankings.info/5717995/
- jagermo 13y agoI'm using Google apps for my business account and i am really annoyed that they are still not able to provide a sync tool (or a direct exchange access) for Outlook 2013. I know I could use SMTP or IMAP, but I also want to sync calendar and contacts (that is, in fact, the reason I upgraded to the pro version of apps in the first place). Don't get me wrong, it is completely ok for Google to disable free stuff as they want. I would, however, prefer that they support their paying customers better. Or, at least, offer an option to got premium and pay for the stuff we would like to use.
- lani 13y ago!!!!! Don't give them ideas !!!!!