I have a mostly hate relationship with gmail, the only things I love –like is the more accurate term– is the storage, and the free pop3, that’s it. I know, gmail is the best web email client around right now, I know they have done much better than their competition, but they are not better than an email desktop client.
In my case my email client is mutt, I’ve been using it for so long I don’t remember. I pair it with procmail, I’m in email heaven.
So why do I use gmail? The answer is simple and yet complex; where I live the bandwidth is very limited, and expensive. There is an issue with blackouts, yes we get a couple of hours of blackouts daily, so I can’t host my own blog, and email, even though I own a more than capable server. So, in my case there is no way around it, I use gmail pop3 service, and very rarely do I login to the website.
I hear you saying, no, gmail is more than that, you get the ability to search your emails by different search criterias, and you have labels, that are so much better to the stupid mail folders, and filter rules. I can search for email in mutt, just as you do it in gmail, even better, I can implement my own search application and call it from within mutt, and I like having mail folders. I do think labels are a very good idea, and make navigating and handling email easier in gmail, but I don’t miss them at all when using mutt.
So, you are a google hater then? Nope. I’m not a google hater, in fact, I quite like google reader, I use it a lot, go figure. I also like google groups, and google search of course. I do think google is, a dangerous proposition when it comes to privacy (yes, I’m paranoid). I don’t care much for the archiving they do of my emails, but right now it’s a trade off I have to live with.
So there, that’s why I’m not a “gmail is the gratest thing since slice bread” proponent, and see google as whole, with mild trepidation.
15 Comments
Blasphemy !!! :P Just kidding, to each his own I guess. But I have to say that I’m surprised to hear that from you.
I understand why it’s surprising for you. But it is something that has bothered me about web email, since the start.
I’m not a web 2.0 guy, the premise is sound, but the fact is that they are trust systems, and if you look into the history of computing, you will see that trust systems are not reliable or secure.
In this case, it is just a privacy nightmare, not because they can give your information out to law enforcement, but because the day, their systems are compromised, that day well, I’m sure you get the idea.
As I am currently inhabiting the lowlands of Caribbean countries such as you are, I can relate to the lack of bandwidth and constant electricity. Ironically things that most of the people that have access to this material take for granted.
GMail may be the coolest web email client in the world. It can be years ahead of it’s time, and far better than any other web email client on the market (and I have several friends that will in fact very seriously take this position). But make no mistake IT IS A WEB CLIENT. While it gives you certain freedoms, you have to trade in certain things that a desktop application can give you. It doesn’t matter how advanced it may claim to be it will never replace a desktop application.
In my humble opinion, today’s programmers are enamored with the concept of web2.0 and with the new technologies that carter to it. Be them additions to existing languages and toolkits, to the spanking new scripting languages that everyone is talking about (did I say Python? No I didn’t!). Eventually this fad will pass on. We will have a lot of infrastructure made on the web, which will be available, and innovation will continue to strive in this platform. None the less, programming efforts will become once more diversified, and I will be able to hear less propaganda on the subject.
Till that day comes, have a good time with your web apps! I’m perfectly happy with my desktop versions.
First of all your confusing two different things
1- gmail
As for mail clients this has revolutionalize the industry, not gmail hotmail back in the days most users have no idea of how to setup a desktop client, web-based email is THE way to go today that how people actually manage it.
As for gmail features the conversations (in their layout) is the best thing they have, I love it to follow mailing list, the simple fact that they colapse vs tree-like makes it super easy to read emails in bulks.
now IMO the killer feature people see in gmail is that it’s accesible from around the world, desktop apps have this huge issue they are only usefull in one computer, unless you setup complex sync between your machines.
2- rich webapplications
since this doesn’t belongs to this post I’ll just say tamgo’s opinion is totally flaw, distributed systems build on top of browsers and http are the future.
Well if it isn’t Jorge “Nostradamus” Vargas predicting the future again. When and if the spit finds it’s way down to your face again, please be willing to admit that you said this. And since I know my good friend monk will keep this archived for years and years to come, I’ll have fun sending you this link.
First of all, any POP or IMAP server is accessible from anywhere around the world. This is not something exclusive to web email.
Second, they did not invent (and they don’t have the patent to say otherwise :p) the conversation or tree view of emails concept. This is not the only place you can find this functionality, web app or otherwise.
Third, “the easy route” is totally relative. It’s much more easy to configure my desktop web mail client, than it is to fill out a online registration form, which asks me for a bunch of stupid things that aren’t going to help my mail experience at all. If you need to access your mail from another computer, all you have to do is click 3 times through a wizard. Now you can argue that this is just a “one time thing”, vs. configuring desktop clients in each computer every time. I will say that you are right, but how many computers do you usually check your email in? If the answer is above 3, then your problem is not the interface that delivers mail to you. Keeping things synchronized is not a huge issue, it’s called IMAP.
Fourth, please don’t say that my opinion is flawed, I will simply not accept that. If you disagree with me, that I’m willing to accept. Browser and HTTP may be the future in your world, but at the moment they are nothing but a passing fad. You need to be willing to view alternate realities where you might actually be wrong… YES IT IS POSSIBLE.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that connected applications are not part the current success of applications, and will continue to drive innovation. It’s just that web as a platform obligates you to sacrifice a lot of things, and no web2.0-ajax front end can compensate for it.
Democracy, World Of Warcraft, Bit Torrent in general, ITunes. All of these have been amazing software platforms in one way or another. All of them are “the killer app” in their own realm. All of them would be impossible to implement on a web application.
I will address point 2 first:
Yes, distributed applications are the future, and specially web based applications, but there is one little thing you are missing; not everybody is or will have a way of connecting to the net. While a lot of people believe that we are heading for a connected future, I am skeptic, because we need to solve a lot of infrastructure issues for that, issues that are in most cases are not cost effective.
Now to point 1:
I am not confusing anything, what you need to understand is that: I admit web 2.0, and web applications are cool, they don’t give me the level of security I for one want. I have to trust them with my information, in a way that they have direct and easy access to it.
About gmail, In my client of choice, as with other mail clients, you can view threads in different ways; I handle threads views, the way I like to handle it, it’s my choice, something I don’t have with web email. The other point that you choose to ignore is the fact, that while I do need a net connection to access email either way, with a desktop client, I can download the email, and read it in my own time, saving myself time, and what’s more important to me, the distraction.
Also do keep in mind, that the internet is not a global phenomenon, their are a lot of countries without broadband, and only have limited satellite or dial up connections. Also when I travel, I take my laptop, so if there is a net connection, I can as easily plug my laptop in and browse it. That also brings me to the point that I’m a paranoid SOB, so I don’t do internet cafe’s because, well they are insecure.
Let me go ahead and add this blog to my RSS reader… I wanted to express my opinions about this post but I’ll refrain myself of doing so since “Nostradamus” and the “green” have, so eloquently, “clarify” the monk’s confusion.
Yes, he’s clearly confused. Hopefully he won’t be anymore. :)
@Jorge: Grammar…. it does a body good
IMHO gmail is the best web email service, so good that I wish the work email was also gmail based (though I guess anything would be better than that). However, would I use it for private, sensitive or business-related information? Absolutely not. I guess it’s a matter of what you want you want to do with your email. Web emails are designed for general use, such as sending photos, catching up with friends, things like that.
@Tamgo: Though I agree with you on that there’s an over-predominance of so called “Web 2.0″ apps (Beta!), I wouldn’t go as far as to label it a fad. The types of services that are being created and their improvements every day, are only proving the great benefits of the thin-client approach, so I’d expect even more sophisticated types of services to follow, though I guess that’s what you referred at the end of your post. Bottom-line: It’s not a fad, it’s a movement that will can only continue forward.
Elvis, please don’t refrain, and let me know, where it is my confusion lies; because I don’t think I’m confused, I may have not made my thoughts clear, but I don’t think I am confused.
And thank you for adding me to your rss client. Hope you enjoy the show.
Ivan: I agree with you completely. Please look at my first post. I was referring to the current wave of “everything has to be web”. I was referring to developers taking the web approach for making when application when it makes sense, and when it doesn’t. I was referring to the notion that EVERYTHING has to be online and viewed through a browser, and until we get there, the world will remain in it’s imperfect state.
You may think this is an extremist notion, but there are a lot of people who think in this fashion. There are a couple that spend 9 hours sitting in chairs that are but a few meters away from yours.
I agree that the thin client is making a come back. But I am sure you will agree that the exclusive form of thin client IS NOT WEB, there are other alternatives that within the appropriate circumstance, are far superior to former. The applications that I stated earlier are all good examples of this.
And yes I agree, grammar does make a body good :p.
I think Elvis was being sarcastic, in that it seems the whole deal has already been solved by “someone”, hence, no point in discussing.
a couple of things
@green pop as I said is NOT made to be handle by more then one computer, IMAP is not available to many email users even worst configuring a server for it. (is very complex at least that is what I have been told)
I never said gmail invented anything they made it better, let me say it again since it seems you didn’t got it, the way gmail handle threads is way better then any other client, the fact that they took out the tree is genious.
passing fad? so I’m nostradamous?
web as a platform doesn’t makes you sacrifies stuff it’s a whole different concept. of course 3d apps like WoW are not implemented inside the browser because they are all moving over to the consoles (at last) but are you forgetting about the wii number, the fact that all games are online in some way or another, they ALL have a server they are already there.
About bittorrent you may want to stop by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllPeers
@xmonk yes I agree with you we have a lot of infastructure problems to solve until everything is online all the time
sorry about point number 1 that was with green
but again to gmail or not to gmail, the only two issues I see with gmail are privacy (gpg,ssl,etc.) and offline access, other then that the userinterface beats the crap out of everyother one.
Jorge: You are arguing in my favor. The wii’s online enabled applications and games are a testament to the fact the distributed applications once again will predominate the market. THIS IS GOOD.
My objection is to EVERYTHING HAS TO BE INSIDE THE BROWSER. This state of mind is a problem. As I have stated before. There are certain application which make a lot of sense inside a browser, for these applications, great, lovely, awesome, rock on!. Many do not. Many are usable, but don’t offer the same experience as a desktop applications. Web apps have their place, and desktop apps have their place. One will not be able to replace the other without sacrificing some feature on either side.
The “future” most likely holds a place where you will have a mixture of web, and desktop applications, most connected to the net in one form or another, offering you different types of services.
The reason why I insist it’s a fad, is because we have this wave of fanaticism that will not stop until everything is online. This mentality is what I foresee will degrade over time. Developers mind share will once again become more balanced between the different available technologies for distributing services. Everything is cyclic, the universe (and the market) tends towards balance.
This is my objection, please have it clear if you plan on continuing to contradict me.
You should swing around here, and check out that you kind of stated something that’s not entirely true. I don’t know, didn’t understand the sentence very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imap#Multiple_mailboxes_on_the_server
I’m sorry I guess you haven’t check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser
“in computer science, a user interface that allows navigation of objects with a connecting structure”
as for the imap/pop3 thing I didn’t said impossible I said complicated a lot more complicated then opening a browser and post.
Jorge: How is the technical definition of a browser helpful in this discussion?! Please explain this to me, because I just don’t understand. I know what a browser is, I know what it’s for, and I know how web apps are used from it. I am using one at the moment while I write this. By any chance did you read the 3rd or 4th clarification of my argument? Maybe then you can come up with a sane counter argument.
Subscribing to POP is easier than subscribing to web mail. All you have to specify is name, user, password and server. THAT’S IT! The registration form has too much information which is not relevant to the user. Does the fact that the POP configuration form is inside an application and not a pretty page in a browser make it inherently harder to complete? Because I really don’t see how it’s simpler.
Please read, think… think some more, then reply. Because you are not making any sense.
2 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] yes green IMO webapps are the future, it’s just that we don’t know what they are going to evolve [...]
Developer’s Love Affair With Web Programming
We are currently experiencing what some call the second coming of the Internet bubble: Web 2.0. However it is defined or interpreted is the “wave of the future”. We already experience it with the fervous activities of several developer comm…