3 ms·
That wouldn't be Gmail in any sense. Why would google be involved in that product -- they dont' provide the server, the delivery, the spam detection (right?) I
by gohrt 13y ago
That wouldn't be Gmail in any sense. Why would google be involved in that product -- they dont' provide the server, the delivery, the spam detection (right?)
If you dont want to use Gmail for some or all messages, just don't use Gmail.
- emiliobumachar 13y agoThey could provide all the client software. Hell, they could even make ad targeting work by moving their mail-reading bots to the client and have them select ads from a stack of mothership-provided ads, with no feedback except following the link if you click. But I agree with you that it's very different from anything they do. Also, too vulnerable to piracy or cloning. Aaand it may not be feasible to run their bots in a weak machine.
- huggah 13y ago> they could even make ad targeting work by moving their mail-reading bots to the client Gmail ad targeting isn't a bit of JavaScript that can run in real time in the background. It's a series of huge map reduces touching data sets larger than any client computer could store. Just indexing a pre-prepared list of mothership ads would result in a horrible user experience (far poorer ad targeting). Google has a vested interest in only showing you ads you might be interested in; it doesn't work as well as it should, but it works magnitudes better than the state of the art 10 years ago.
- jmillikin 13y agoWhy would anyone use a proprietary ad-ridden client when there would be multiple high-quality open-source clients available? And if the protocol is sufficiently closed to prevent open-source clients, why would anyone use it at all? Wouldn't that be the same as the XMPP->Hangouts transition that infuriated everyone a few weeks ago?