3 ms·

I am against Google replacing IMAP with their own API (and yes I know they aren't removing IMAP support yet.) But as far as an individual app developer choosin

by ebbv 12y ago

I am against Google replacing IMAP with their own API (and yes I know they aren't removing IMAP support yet.) But as far as an individual app developer choosing only to support Gmail, or only support whatever. That's their choice. That's not supplanting an industry wide standard. The case of Mailbox is very different from say, Mozilla removing IMAP support from Thunderbird, or Apple removing IMAP support from Mail.app. Mailbox as designed from the beginning as a Gmail client. That's not a flaw in the design, it's the intended design. If you want a more general purpose mail client, make one. Don't fault other developers who weren't intending on making that in the first place.

deong 12y ago
It's fine to criticize others for pursuing goals you think are actively harmful. Of course, nothing makes your criticism magically "correct", and everyone is free to have different opinions, but the fact that a design was intentional doesn't make it immune from criticism.
onli 12y ago
> If you want a more general purpose mail client, make one. Don't fault other developers who weren't intending on making that in the first place. I can't make another mail client right now, I already have a lot of projects, and some others on my todo-list (like indeed a rss-reader). But you don't have to build something on your own to have the right to critize other things of the same kind. That is really just unnecessary rhetoric. The point of the article still stands: That the intended design is just targeting gmail is exactly the point he critizes. It is not a flaw in a design, the flaw is the design. IFF it would have worked with imap as well, but even if not, it still would be support for a too strong player (in his eyes at least). And note that it is an appel, an advice of what would be better for the internet as a whole. It is not a design critic in the sense of "there is a bug". The article is inherently ideological, and that is valid.

by ebbv 12y ago

deong 12y ago

It's fine to criticize others for pursuing goals you think are actively harmful. Of course, nothing makes your criticism magically "correct", and everyone is free to have different opinions, but the fact that a design was intentional doesn't make it immune from criticism.

onli 12y ago

> If you want a more general purpose mail client, make one. Don't fault other developers who weren't intending on making that in the first place. I can't make another mail client right now, I already have a lot of projects, and some others on my todo-list (like indeed a rss-reader). But you don't have to build something on your own to have the right to critize other things of the same kind. That is really just unnecessary rhetoric. The point of the article still stands: That the intended design is just targeting gmail is exactly the point he critizes. It is not a flaw in a design, the flaw is the design. IFF it would have worked with imap as well, but even if not, it still would be support for a too strong player (in his eyes at least). And note that it is an appel, an advice of what would be better for the internet as a whole. It is not a design critic in the sense of "there is a bug". The article is inherently ideological, and that is valid.