Slashdot Mirror


Forbes Reviews Google's Gmail [updated]

An anonymous reader submits "Forbes.com has what looks to be the first hands-on review of Google's forthcoming Gmail service. Aside from the 1-gigabyte storage, the searching features sound pretty useful for what the writer calls 'email packrats' which I think fits me pretty well. But I can't say I agree with the writer's opinion that privacy fears, as discussed this Slashdot thread, about the Gmail service are 'overblown.' Still and all, I'm curious to try it myself and see what I think." Update: 04/13 00:55 GMT by T : notEA writes "A California state senator is drafting legislation to block Google from releasing Gmail. Seems kind of silly, since all anti-spam filters read your messages anyway."

15 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. Google Backups! by MoxCamel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With 1GB of storage, it won't be long until someone writes a perl script
    to run backups to multiple Google accounts. The money I'd save on tapes
    alone--wow!

    1. Re:Google Backups! by BandwidthHog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever consider that the rocket surgeons at Google have already thought of that? You really think they're gonna let their new baby become the world's biggest DC hub?

      That's one thing I'm interested in seeing, is where they draw the line when it comes to using a webmail account as an FTP server.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:Google Backups! by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is a 10MB/attachment max, I believe. If you're talking warez, you'd have to be giving people access to the password, at which point someone will delete the files or just change the password.

      No, you don't.

      Use the GMail account for storage. On your warez site, when someone clicks a "download" link, the site backend creates a new GMail account for the user, popping up any CAPTCHA system Google is using for the user to solve. It then forwards the approprate e-mails from the storage account to the newly-created account, gives you the username and password for that account, and lets you take care of downloading and reassembling the pieces. During this process, the storage account is perfectly secure.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  2. Fucking danger by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even if Google is a "cool" company, I'm not so sure that I really want to let them have rights to my private information as their licence can be interpreted to give them.

    Remember, Netscape used to be "cool" too. And Caldera. And so on and so fourth...

    Then again, maybe McNealey was right and privacy is dead. What a wonderful world.

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  3. Name Grabbing-rush by obfuscated · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is everyone prepared for the 'oklahoma-land-rush style' name grabbing?

    I'm sure there will be people who will try and speculate a few names for themselves and then sell them just like domain names.

    I have a script that refreshes the gmail page daily to try and get a jump on my name but I don't have faith that I'll actually get it.

    --

    -- dK ... Narf Poit!
    1. Re:Name Grabbing-rush by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Interesting that Google would have the ability to trump any such schemes by running the auction themselves...

      Announce a 30-day pre-launch period where people can "pre-register" their desired user names. Anybody who picks a unique name gets it free. Anybody who picks a name that's in conflict gets invited into an auction to take part in if they still want the name.

      This would deflate most of the name-speculation business because in order for a speculator to profit, they'd have to win the name at auction and then somehow sell that name for more than they paid. Google could keep the money for itself, but knowing their "Don't be evil" rules they'd likely donate the money to a charity cause.

      "First come, first served" would be a very unwise policy for Google to take... but notice they haven't told us what their name-handout policy will be yet.

  4. Re:It isn't forced on us.... by knowles420 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    or... sign up anyway and waste their precious storage space.

    --
    -knowles
  5. Re:In Google We Trust by Vancorps · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I do trust Google to do what they say they are doing. I often wonder of the legal side-effects of an archiving service like this. Many ISPs don't keep logs any long than 30 days on a pure logistics standpoint. Its easier to be able to say the records don't exist that it is to produce 10 year old emails.

    Of course, Google knows content management so maybe they are fully prepared to handle the flood of subpoenas and the likes.

  6. Google will enjoy countering the abusers by IceAgeComing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't forget that they're going to learn a lot about how to defeat various abusive strategies with their own record-keeping and creative ideas. They're going to have the world's best testbed for all kinds of new internet-related issues.

    My guess is that they'll experiment with techniques to make sure it's a person, rather than a script. And they'll keep stats on how effective each technique was.

    There will be so many interesting research opportunities for them. There are perks to being the world's largest provider of something (MS, Oracle, Google, etc).

  7. Re:It isn't forced on us.... by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do you seriously think that every user who signs up will use the full gigabyte? I've got e-mail archives reaching back almost six years for my personal account, and it's only a couple hundred MB.

    What's going to happen is that they'll allocate a few hundred KB or so for each user who signs up, then add disk space as needed.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  8. Re:1GB email isn't that unique by EdipisReks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the Spymac e-mail addresses are quite nice. they had a bit of a lag on activation e-mails for the first couple days, but that seems to have been cleared up.

  9. gmail discriminates against the blind by Twid · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mark Pilgrim, an accessibility guru, has a pretty harsh review of gmail here:
    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/04/12/dream
    and here:
    http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/04/10/gmail- accessibility

    My favorite quotes:
    If your web site doesn't work in Lynx, your web site is thoroughly, thoroughly fucked.


    The only way to use Gmail is the way that the Gmail designers use Gmail. The only way Gmail could be less accessible is if the entire site were built in Flash.


    That said, I have a gmail account and I think it looks great. Still, that's an awesome flame from Mark Pilgrim.
    --
    - "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
  10. Re:Gmail should be really for free? by Xeger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm somewhat skeptical on your figure of 200,000,000 (two hundred million) Hotmail accounts ... but, assuming that's a worldwide total and assuming that some small fraction of Hotmail users are abusing the service by using dozens or hundreds of mailboxes for whatever nefarious activities, I suppose it's a halfway plausible figure.

    So let's assume, for the moment, that Google really plans to support on the order of one hundred million users. Your numbers clearly indicate that 1GB of devoted disk space per user would be unfeasible -- or at the very least, *very* costly to maintain. Happily, I don't think Google plan to go that route.

    I would consider myself an average-volume email user, but after subtracting out the ~300 spams I receive daily, I probably get fewer than three dozen pieces of ham (valid emails) on a given weekday. Those messages have a very small average size (about 3kB) but we'll be charitable and assume that the average ham is 10kB in size.

    So, the typical user (i.e. me) can expect to receive 360kB of mail in a day. At this rate one would expect that his 1GB of storage would be exhausted within a year. But emails are plain ASCII or Unicode text, which is very compressible. Google are of course very good at storing text in compressed-but-searchable form -- one might even say it's their core competency, alongside the PageRank algorithm. Given that emails consist of a large amount of redundant information such as headers, and that many list threads endlessly quote earlier messages, a user's entire mail corpus might be compressible by 300%. So we've raised our time to hit quota from one year to three years.

    If Google are *really* smart, they'll identify mailing list messages and amortize the storage cost for a list message among all Gmail subscribers subscribe to the list. Since lists are typically the noisiest source of mail in my inbox (most messages and largest size), I would expect quite a bit of savings from this technique.

  11. Re:And, by v1x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I dont know about hotmail specifically, but MSN communities doesnt seem to delete stuff after they delete your account. In my case, I received a bunch of warnings that my community had become inactive and would be deleted if I didnt take action. Surely enough, after some time, they did delete it. Then, a few months later, I created a new community with the exact same name. Imagine my surprize when I found my old folders & files in this newly created community! I dont think we can take any of these services for granted when it comes to archiving our data.

  12. Re:It isn't forced on us.... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    well, can't i just upload one huge file full of gibberish and leave it there to rot?

    How about by deleting inactive accounts? if you don't access it for say 3 months, kill the account.

    But more to the point, why waste their space? If you don't like ads based on your mail, just don't use their service. They are offering you a deal - 1gig of space, paid for by advertisers. If you are worried about the impact on your privacy, don't take the deal.

    Wasting their space to make a point about privacy is like spamming a mailing list becasue you don't like the admin's rules - trying to force your viewpoint on a community that has agreed to live by a set of rules that you don't agree with.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.