Slashdot Mirror


Google Buys iPhone Search App, Kills It

Hugh Pickens writes "PC World reports that Google has acquired a popular iPhone application called reMail that provides 'lightning fast' full-text search of your Gmail and IMAP e-mail accounts. The app downloads copies of all your e-mail which can then be searched with various Boolean options. reMail has only been in the application store for about six months — with a free version limited to one Gmail account and a premium version which can connect to multiple accounts. 'Google and reMail have decided to discontinue reMail's iPhone application, and we have removed it from the App Store,' writes company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team. Google isn't saying what the fate of reMail might be. Some are suggesting reMail could be integrated into Gmail search or live on in some form as a part of Android, Google's mobile platform. Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone better or the acquisition may have more to do with keeping good search technology away from the competition, as opposed to an attempt to undercut the iPhone. 'Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,' writes Bill Ray at the Register."

223 comments

  1. Fate? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'll be "re-incorporated" into some distant version of gmail.

    Otherwise, buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
    1. Re:Fate? by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Otherwise, buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time.

      They hired the developer, though, and it's not necessarily a waste of time to deprive a competitor of a good application either.

    2. Re:Fate? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the app store, 20 clones will pop up soon enough.

      Like I said, it'll be incorporated into some version of gmail down the line. (My guess anyway)

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    3. Re:Fate? by Em+Emalb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Troll mod? LOL. Someone forget to eat their Cheerios this morning?

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    4. Re:Fate? by sucati · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Why is this moderated Troll? Slashdot needs to get with it and adopt a moderation system like Reddit. I spend most my time there as the quality of Slashdot has gone way downhill. I guess this will be Troll as well.

    5. Re:Fate? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Was hiring him a condition of the guy selling them the app?

    6. Re:Fate? by sopssa · · Score: 3, Informative

      He seems to have some experience on the gmail team at least, he was an intern there when Google started developing it.

    7. Re:Fate? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why some other enterprising young programmer couldn't produce a similar iPhone app to fill the void. Or that Apple could fold the notion into their mail program (I presume iPhone has an Apple mail widget or app).

    8. Re:Fate? by idontgno · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You shouldn't complain about moderation until you understand it.

      Your comment will be modded "offtopic".

      So will this one.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you don't know what "petite" means. Petite just means she is on the short side, but may still have nice proportions. You mean you like flat chested girls.

    10. Re:Fate? by Ltap · · Score: 1

      Yes. Buying something just to kill it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. Theoretically it makes good business sense, but considering all of the losing prospects MS has bought over the years, it's really just a giant money drain, since if it was popular at all, someone will come along and do the same thing. I'm guessing that (I don't know the specifics) if Android doesn't have something like this already, the developer will show up six months from now with an Android port.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    11. Re:Fate? by MadChicken · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not identical, I'm sure, but it's been out for a long time already. It's called DeepFish http://www.webis.net/products_info.php?p_id=deepfish

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
    12. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does. It also (in the 3.x OS releases) has a Spotlight-like search feature that - among other things, such as calendar events, songs, applications etc. - indexes all mail accessible to the phone at the time. It doesn't allow for boolean searches but does to keyword based searches just fine.

    13. Re:Fate? by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are correct it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. This is definately in the realm of embrace-extend-extinguish.

      BTW: Note to Google, embrace-extend-extinguish is evil.

      Its looking more and more like its well past time for Google to admit that the "Don't be evil." slogan no longer applies anymore.... If it ever really did.

    14. Re:Fate? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "They hired the developer"

      Can you imagine that? One day you're just another developer of an email app on the iPhone and you get a call from Google saying "HI we're GOOGLE and we like your app. We'd like to hire you as the Product Manager of the GMAIL Team and buy your app from you. How does that sound?"

      Think I'd have a permanent smile for a few weeks

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    15. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Google business model precludes depriving a competitor of a good application. Google makes money when eyeballs hit gmail. That is their business model: eyeballs hitting their ads. More eyeballs means more revenue.

      That is Google's motivation for their side products and it guides almost all of their decisions. Rumor has it they are even working on giving humans third eyes (first by prosthesis and later through genetic modification) just to increase their revenues.

    16. Re:Fate? by bill_kress · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google tends not to play like that. They actively encourage competition and feel it's good for the marketplace.

      --I got pegged as a microsoft marketing droid once by an AC, Now I just need my Google, linux and Apple "fanboy" creds...

    17. Re:Fate? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Actually it's a very IBMish kind of thing to do. Unlike you, I have an actual example - Rational Visual Test.

    18. Re:Fate? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1, Informative

      Reddit's moderation system? Are you kidding me? It sucks balls compared to Slashdot's.

      --
      This space for rent.
    19. Re:Fate? by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Funny

      Think I'd have a permanent smile for a few weeks

      That's a mighty small value of "permanent".

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    20. Re:Fate? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      He'd better not visit Australia, or he'd be classified as a pedophile...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Fate? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It also (in the 3.x OS releases) has a Spotlight-like search feature

      If it really is like Spotlight, then there's probably still a good market for third-party search apps...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Fate? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't embrace extend and extinguish though. There aren't very many good examples, but two more recent ones are:

      HTML - Microsoft embraced it, then added extensions to it (Active X), and then after bundling it with the most popular OS on the planet it became a widely used standard. So much so that there are still apps out there that only run on IE (SAP client for example).

      Java - Microsoft embraced Java (there was a time when IE had Java support built right in!), they added some extensions to it that only IE supported, and then Sun sued them. Still the fallout is that MS vowed to destroy them in the marketplace, and I'd say that Oracles purchase of Sun pretty much confirms they are on the right path still.

      See the idea is to make it so that anyone who wants Java, or the Web has to use the most complete client - which is only available from MS. Once MS has you using their stuff - they then encourage people to use ActiveX - once everyone is doing that they then annouce that they are discontinuing support for Java or Javascript. That was the plan at least - the only thing that really shut this process down was Netscape opening up the source for their browser.

      IBM was pretty good at this back in the day when they were a monopoly. They tended to do it more with communications protocols, cable plugs, disk formats than with software.

      Google's purchase of this app, and removing it from the iPhone is actually more similar to something Apple does more frequently. Shake (while I know its discontinued bear with me) there was a time when it ran on Mac, Windows, Irix etc - after purchasing it they immediately discontinued support for Windows and SGI. What google did is a dick move, but it isn't embrace, extend and extinguish - and I'd defy you to find an example of google doing this.

    23. Re:Fate? by Korbeau · · Score: 1

      Think I'd have a permanent smile for a few weeks

      That's a mighty small value of "permanent".

      You're unfailing, poignant logic would make you the ideal candidate to work at Google.

    24. Re:Fate? by Aeros · · Score: 1

      I dont think articles answer back on here..do they?

    25. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google tends not to play like that? Seriously? Do you even know where 90% of the stuff in google labs came from? This IS what google does.

    26. Re:Fate? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Google tends not to play like that. They actively encourage competition and feel it's good for the marketplace.

      Google has been moving into a lot of new markets over the past year or two - I think it's way too early to make determinations regarding how they behave when they're trying to move into an already crowded market (meaning everything except search).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    27. Re:Fate? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rumor has it they are even working on giving humans third eyes

      Google's efforts to engineer humans to make them better consumers of their products is not the first.

      Apple has already managed to modify their customers to give them limp wrists, and Microsoft modifies their customers by tearing them new assholes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:Fate? by Draek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are correct it is a very Microsoft kind of thing to do. This is definately in the realm of embrace-extend-extinguish.

      Wrong. Embrace-Extend-Extinguish is when you Embrace a competitor's product/standard, Extend it in ways incompatible with the original product, and Extinguish it by pushing your own product so hard in the minds of consumers it is you, and not your competitor or the standards body, who determines what's the standard to follow.

      What Microsoft tried to do with HTML before Firefox, and Java before the anti-trust lawsuit are E-E-E. Arguably, what Apple, Nokia and Google are trying to do with h.264 and HTML5 is also E-E-E. But simply buying a company that makes a popular product for a competing platform isn't E-E-E, it's just business as usual and examples of such are plentiful in the corporate world.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    29. Re:Fate? by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote, I think, from Luis Farrakhan, who was making a speech encouraging his audience to have pride, embrace who they are, etc. He was going into an example of how people waste their time and money straightening their hair. "It's not a permanent," he said, "it's a temporary."

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    30. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Carpenter's Dream: flat and easy to nail

    31. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a kfc man -- small breasts, fat thighs, and a greasy box.

    32. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-fulfilling prophecy right here, folks.

    33. Re:Fate? by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      "I happen to like petites. A lot. Plenty of them are also very, very nice girls-- which is extremely nice, since they're cute and very fun to work with. Girls like that can be self-conscious that they don't have huge boobs but they don't want to get fat either; but that's pretty silly, a lot of them are major knock-outs."

      One nice thing about girls w/o big boobs...they don't soon have big saggy boobs with a little age or after having kids, whichever comes first.

      Ugh..I can't stand having saggy floppy boobs hitting me in the face when she's on top...or seeing them roll under her arms when she's on bottom.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:Fate? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "That's a mighty small value of "permanent"."

      Hell, if the buyout was for enough money...why bother to work any more?

      Being able to go on a permanent vacation would leave a permanent smile on my face!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    35. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      --I got pegged as a microsoft marketing droid once by an AC, Now I just need my Google, linux and Apple "fanboy" creds...

      Or maybe you're just gullible.

    36. Re:Fate? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      They may tend not to play like that - but that doesn't change the fact that they just did play like that. They actively *discouraged* competition and took steps to eliminate it from the marketplace.

    37. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up Google Fanboi

    38. Re:Fate? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Surely people can already download another search application from another site, without waiting for the official app store?

      Oh wait, I forgot, this is the Iphone.

    39. Re:Fate? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      It's definitely NOT a Microsoft thing to do. They are not screwing over any partner here. And not destroying anything.
      All over there are examples of buying up talent and companies and killing off the product.
      It's not evil, per se. But in the context of Android vs iPhone, it can be viewed as an "evil" act.

    40. Re:Fate? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      What google is doing is not E-E-E, they are simply using the best tool for the job. The difference in bandwidth usage of H.264 vs Theora is not acceptable to Google for YouTube. They have said they plan to support Theora in Chrome (from what I remember).

      Plus they just bought On2 and may well make On2 VP6, VP7 or VP8 available under a liberal license (meaning Chrome, FFMPEG, Firefox, Opera etc could support those codecs too). Assuming On2 is right and VP8 does beet H.264, Google could adopt VP8 for YouTube instead of H.264 and offer limited H.264 streaming for those devices (like TVs and phones) that cant be updated to support VP8.

      People using IE or would be directed to install to play the content.

    41. Re:Fate? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Wrong
      Embrace Extend and Extinguish is when Microsoft does it, when Google or Apple do it, it is just a "good business move".

      Yep, I've been that long here in slashdot :)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    42. Re:Fate? by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      You're saying they're evil based on what they could do.

      It's more likely that they want to release a Google branded program, or something along that line.

    43. Re:Fate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it isn't embrace, extend and extinguish

      You're right - it's just "embrace and extinguish".

    44. Re:Fate? by Draek · · Score: 1

      That's one of the reasons I said "arguably", the other being that they're actually trying to get it approved as the documented, official standard. But given they've already announced that if the W3C still picks Theora as the standard they'll just ignore it altogether, it's not a clear-cut case in their favor either.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    45. Re:Fate? by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      well..

      >> Otherwise, buying an app like this and not using it is a complete and utter waste of time.

      Google often buys apps and doesn't use the original app, but re-creates it as their own. Generally I think this is due to the fact that they have higher coding standards and are more interested in long-term maintainability than most startups--they are also after the user base. Is there anything wrong with this? If they were buying up ALL the companies in a given area I'd start to worry, but--for instance--I don't think they ever tried to eliminate a competing search engine, webmail or document management group. They bought one and made it work. What's wrong with this approach?

      > They hired the developer, though, and it's not necessarily a waste of time to deprive a competitor of a good application either.

      This is what I was saying they tend not to do--but if they bought the company, they would certainly want the developers.

      They will probably re-write the product and release it. My guess is that they will not harm any companies that compete in that same area though--Good for everyone. I still don't get the hate...

  2. lulz by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.

    1. Re:lulz by jedidiah · · Score: 0

      While this is certainly true. The only reason that Apple could ever
      be exposed to this sort of threat is the fact that they take an 80s
      approach to open data to begin with.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:lulz by aztracker1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like IBM... as far as phone development goes, it's like Android is the Linux of phone platforms (err, wait).

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    3. Re:lulz by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Your metaphor is backwards unless you mean to say that Google is wolf-like and Microsoft is sheep-like.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:lulz by Pojut · · Score: 1

      In 2010, Google being wolf-like and Microsoft being sheep-like is EXACTLY what I meant.

    5. Re:lulz by Danathar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sounds like a case of Google haters wailing in the closet

    6. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because only Google could be so devious as to then put a Google costume on over top of the Microsoft costume, and then act like Microsoft acting like Google. Whoa.

    7. Re:lulz by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I know, right?! The colors, man....the colors.

    8. Re:lulz by afabbro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      GPLv2: I know my rights; I want my phone call!

      The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth. There is no such right. It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal. In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls. You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel. If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    9. Re:lulz by jfredric · · Score: 1

      How do you know if you request to have "so and so" notified has been completed? Should they not have to provide proof that such a task was completed? Doing so in any other way then letting you have a phone call, or making the call on speaker phone or some other way for you to hear said conversation, just screams potential corruption and abuse to me.

    10. Re:lulz by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know if you request to have "so and so" notified has been completed? Should they not have to provide proof that such a task was completed? Doing so in any other way then letting you have a phone call, or making the call on speaker phone or some other way for you to hear said conversation, just screams potential corruption and abuse to me.

      A word of advice - don't get too worked up drawing conclusions based on what someone said on Slashdot.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    11. Re:lulz by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a revenge for the number of apps that Apple denied.

    12. Re:lulz by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Or any number of other companies ( and governments ) throughout history... Microsoft didnt invent it ( what did they invent? ) they just learned to use the tactic well.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what we have is a wolf in sheep's clothing in wolf's clothing?

    14. Re:lulz by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      The right to a phone call is a TV police show myth. There is no such right. It is custom, but not a right, and by no means universal. In some jurisdictions, you may not make phone calls. You have the right to have someone notified, to the extent that you can summon counsel. If the police merely notify the public defender, they have satisfied every legal obligation.

      This is correct. I know someone that was questioned for 48 hours and then released, no phone call. They did give him a sandwich, though.

      Might be different in the US, but up here in Canada I've seen it happen a few times. The police tend not to abuse their power, but they do have quite a lot. It's necessary in order to break real criminals.

    15. Re:lulz by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You know that's just a quote from The Matrix, right?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Don't be Evil? by Sounder40 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So much for _that_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place.

    --
    A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
    1. Re:Don't be Evil? by chill · · Score: 1

      This isn't evil.

      Evil would be if the code was FOSS and someone else released a fork and Google threatened or sued them.

      Evil would be if someone wrote a similar app and Google threatened or sued over copyright or general "IP".

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Don't be Evil? by c · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > So much for _that_ motto... as if they lived by it
      > in the first place.

      You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil". The developer got a nice permanent job and a pile of cash, existing users still get to use the app they bought. Potential users are out of luck, but I don't see how Google owes them anything...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    3. Re:Don't be Evil? by cynyr · · Score: 1

      aand they may not even be out of luck, s it sounds they gave the guy a job. Looks like they will be rolling it out to everyone.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    4. Re:Don't be Evil? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, this is a good case for why a developer would FOSS an application in the first place. Of course, if you're in "Please Google buy me out and make me rich beyond avarice" mode, then you wouldn't.

      How about creating a semi FOSS license that remains closed source, and immediately becomes FOSS or Public Domain should the company ever fold, or the software itself becomes otherwise unavailable.

      Kind of a poison pill of everlasting life. It would prevent applications from ever disappearing except by natural death (nobody wants it any longer).

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Don't be Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about time "potential users" ditch their iPhone in favor of something better, anyway.

    6. Re:Don't be Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".

      it's not evil for apple, it's not evil for the developer, but it _is_ evil for any gmail user with iphone/itouch

    7. Re:Don't be Evil? by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Evil? Or just smart?

      What does it matter to you?
      When you've got a job to do
      You've got to do it well;
      You gotta give the other fellow hell!

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    8. Re:Don't be Evil? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      How about creating a semi FOSS license that remains closed source, and immediately becomes FOSS or Public Domain should the company ever fold, or the software itself becomes otherwise unavailable.

      Of course, the problem with that is that you have to make the source available ahead of time. Part of the reason that FOSS licenses aren't revokable is that, once you've released a copy under the license, anyone with that copy retains the license under which it was released.

      I kind of like the idea that, in order to get formal copyright protection, developers must register the source code with some government agency. Then the source would be released to the public domain if the copyright expires, and further that the copyright could be forced to expire for abandonware under certain circumstances.

      I don't know if that's practical, but it seems fair to me.

    9. Re:Don't be Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having already worked for Google, the developer already has piles of cash, and doesn't need a permanent job.

      dom

    10. Re:Don't be Evil? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Of course, if you're in "Please Google buy me out and make me rich beyond avarice" mode, then you wouldn't."

      I recommend that every professional developer get into that mode if they're lucky enough to have the opportunity. As in professional sports, most of us won't get to play much once we reach our forties so you need to save the money for the lean years. Being an F/OSS hero won't pay the bills.

    11. Re:Don't be Evil? by WARM3CH · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is a good case for why a developer would FOSS an application in the first place.

      hmmm, how? This particular developer was looking for making money right from the beginning (his app had a paid version too) and I can argue that but not making it FOSS, he made it possible for Google to buy it (money!) and hire him (money! money!). How would he make comparable profit buy making the project FOSS?

    12. Re:Don't be Evil? by furby076 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Google just killed their competition instead of trying to develop something that is better then it. Basically they said "we can't or don't feel like being creative so we will buy something out and shut it down"...it fosters anti-competitive behavior...which is something MS gets slammed for all the time.

      Now on a personal note if I knew how to program I would continuously make apps in the hope that a big company buys me out with tons of money. It's a great way to get rich. Then get hired by the company and make even more money. Nothing is wrong with this model.

      So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil that they are preventing innovative competition.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    13. Re:Don't be Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Existing users get to use the app they bought until they have to reformat their phone (backups aren't the answer as you want to start with a clean slate sometimes)...then it's gone. Same thing happened to me with the Google Phone App I bought. SOL. Guess I'll be going to hacker sites do install a "pirated" version when I have to do that.

    14. Re:Don't be Evil? by c · · Score: 1

      > So not evil in the way they treated the developer, but evil
      > that they are preventing innovative competition.

      If they are, which depends on their intent. If they hired the developer mainly to get his expertise on Android, then screwing Apple is just a nice side-effect.

      Besides, one can argue that they've _increased_ innovative competition by highlighting a market which people care about and which Google cares enough to buy out. Surely that'll spur competition? Unless they pull this "buy and kill" trick again, or take active steps to make gmail hostile to similar apps, it's tough to conclude that preventing competition is really the main goal.

      So at this point, I'm finding it tough to see any real "evil".

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    15. Re:Don't be Evil? by npsimons · · Score: 1

      You'll need to explain why playing hardball with Apple counts, in some way, as "evil".

      Hell, fucking with Apple counts as one of the most *good* things anyone can do, in my book. And honestly, I don't think Google was really doing this to do any harm to Apple; I think all the fanboys are just having a persecution complex overreaction.

  4. Totally idiotic conclusions by MemoryDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Googles interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their services so that they can earn the ad revenues, now this application basically performed inbox searches without redirecting the user to gmail (where google would get the money from the ad revenues)
    So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!

    1. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Googles interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their services so that they can earn the ad revenues

      That was what immediately occurred to me too. Google isn't being *very* evil, it's just trying to maintain its income base. I don't have (or even particularly want) an iPhone, but given Apple's various ways of pursuing its business model, evilness seems to mean different things to different people.

      Just to be clear, I'm not particularly bashing Apple (I'm typing this on a MacBook I inherited from my wife when she upgraded to a more recent model), I'm just saying let's not be hypocrites.

    2. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's why they killed POP access, too!

      Oh, wait, no they didn't.

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.

    3. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by killmenow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is my thought exactly. An app that lets you search through your GMail data without hitting Google's servers every time you search interferes with their core business of providing ads along with search results while monitoring users' searches to improve both search algorithms and ad delivery algorithms. If the app somehow reappears, you can bet even if it works off-line when you have no data connection, the search info will still be tracked and sent back to Google when connectivity is restored. And ads may be added as a "feature" as well.

      I'm not saying they're bad or evil and that they're big brother tracking you and "ooh, better wear your tinfoil hats" or anything. Simply saying their business is dependent on maintaining their lead in search technology and ad delivery technology and one of the best ways to do that is to data mine how/what people are searching.

    4. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by toastar · · Score: 1

      That's why they killed POP access, too!

      Oh, wait, no they didn't.

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.

      What does that make Microsoft? The new IBM?

    5. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      IBM used to look like the Microsoft of today. It was the evil empire. The difference, of course, was that IBM always held the highest technology possible; they'd develop stuff decades ahead of the competition at competitive prices for modern hardware (i.e. a 100TB drive, today, that can successfully sell for $100 at a huge profit margin and is just as reliable as a 500GB Seagate drive), or they'd simply buy out other companies that were developing high-end technology and acquire/complete the technology. This meant that IBM always had the future, in every respect (including cost); nobody could compete, and anyone that could was quickly acquired.

    6. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by idontgno · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, there may already a hole in that: IMAP. I don't EVER hit Gmail's HTTPS address. Thunderbird accesses the gmail box and does all searches internally.

      Of course, if an IMAP MUA uses the IMAP SEARCH command to search mailboxes, then GOOG's IMAP face can treat that input like it would a web-based search form entry, so if that's the case then their search-optimizing input overlord status is secure.

      But other than Google's own feature-promotion spam, I see no advertising.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by MoralHazard · · Score: 3, Informative

      So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!

      But has Google actually killed access methods to G*, in the past, that didn't directly bring it revenue?

        * Exhibit "A": IMAP for Gmail. Despite the lack of advertising revenue during IMAP sessions, Google provides free, quality IMAP service to all Gmail accounts.
        * Exhibit "B": Mobile clients for Gmail: As with IMAP, the mobile Gmail clients (Blackberry, etc.) don't display any advertising to the user during mobile sessions.

      In both the IMAP and mobile cases, Google actually spent time and money (engineering hours) building capacities that let people access Gmail with zero advertising. To the untrained idiot, this might see paradoxical: Why would Google spend money on things that don't directly generate revenue?

      Of course, if you ponder it for a hot five seconds, the answer is pretty obvious: Good IMAP and mobile options can increase user adoption of Gmail, generally, because the end user finds more to use. This means more people will integrate Gmail more deeply into their lives, and the overall increased Gmail usage could very well drive up absolute web UI page views. The alternatives help get me hooked on Gmail, but in the end I spend more time logging in through the web UI because I'm just using Gmail all that much more. In the end, Google gets more ad views, and revenue increases.

      There's a similar concept in retail called the "loss leader": You sell a popular item at below cost, and advertise the hell out of it, just to get people into your store. While they're in your store, they will are likely to buy other, non-sale (profit-making) items, too, since they're already there. Voila! Your revenue increases.

      So who do you think you are, calling these suspicions totally idiotic? Google has suddenly broken with its past policies regarding alternative, non-ad-viewing Gmail interfaces. If you've been trusting Google in the past, due to their general friendliness to end users, this apparent change of heart is kind of alienating.

    8. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by kjart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.

      It never ceases to amaze me when people are surprised when giant corporations behave like giant corporations.

    9. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Crashspeeder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting.

      Agreed. You can also still search IMAP accounts, the only difference is it's slower than this app since the app itself downloaded copies to the phone while native search searches the server. This has nothing to do with ad revenue.

    10. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google could just add whatever they get out of the web based Gmail to this client if this was an issue.

    11. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And by that logic, they should be killing off all 3rd party mail client POP and IMAP inbox access for everyone in 3... 2...

    12. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by killmenow · · Score: 1

      It seems Thunderbird supports both local searching and server-side IMAP SEARCH. I have found info that indicates the default used to be server-side but that was from 2007. I am using Thunderbird 3.0.2 and noticed when I search an IMAP account there is a check box that says "Run search on server" that is unchecked by default.

      Interesting.

    13. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by e2d2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting

      You just summed up the last 10 years.

    14. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting. Apple is the new Microsoft, except for Apple fanboys, who hold Google as the new Microsoft.

      WOW, now Slashdot is predominantly composed of Apple fanboys? When the hell did THAT happen?

      Your post is as ridiculous as "you're a Microsoft shill" posts from years past, and that +5 Insightful moderation is embarrassing.

    15. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by neosake · · Score: 1

      I can search my mail (gmail) in the iPhone mail app without seeing any google ads... how is that different from what reMail did?

      --
      "When a ball dreams, it dreams it's a frisbee"
    16. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just saying let's not be hypocrites.

      You must be new here.

    17. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Waruwaru · · Score: 1

      "Apple's" interest is to route as much traffic as possible to their "App Store" so that they can earn the "commision", now this "Flash" basically "offer rich interactive web apps" without redirecting the user to "App Store" (where "Apple" would get the money from the "commisions") So they simply "reject" it because it did not bring them any revenues!

    18. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100TB drive, today, that can successfully sell for $100 at a huge profit margin and is just as reliable as a 500GB Seagate drive

      Sadly, that doesn't say much about the reliability of the 100TB drive...

    19. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by I!heartU · · Score: 1

      MM I get gmail in Thunderbird so that line of thinking doesn't seem to lineup.

    20. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Any half-decent IMAP client should be caching the emails client-side anyway...

    21. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just increasing base for ads, it's increasing what they know about you, so they can serve you more effective ads.

    22. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the way the user sees it. AFAI am concerned, email is POP or IMAP (or whatever, as long as it requires an email client). The fact that it has web access with advertising is an extra quite unnecessary for my use of Gmail.

      To me, Gmail is a free IMAP host. I don't think I have ever used the web interface at home, and I don't use the web interface often at all (I don't rely on the web interface, not assuming emails can be discovered through a web browser, preferring to wait to get home to check email...)

      That said, Google still make money off me by analyzing my email.

    23. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Rennt · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure this is not the reason. Google's services on Android (including gmail) do not generate any ad revenue at all. Plenty of 3rd party apps have advertising, but none of the "google experience" ones do.

    24. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by Rennt · · Score: 1

      What does that make Microsoft?

      Increasingly irrelevant?

    25. Re:Totally idiotic conclusions by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Slashdot should be embarrassed for all the FUD they've been posting

      You just summed up the last 10 years.

      You know, I think you're right: that would be about the time the Microsoft and Apple fanboys started showing up in large droves.

  5. Google saw a good thing... by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... and bought the company.

    company founder Gabor Cselle, who will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team

    It is perfectly normal to pull the product temporarily to re-brand and redirect during an acquisition that is technically interesting but does not completely meet the company vision. Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    1. Re:Google saw a good thing... by tool462 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No kidding. In related news, did you know that Delta bought Northwest Airlines, and now they're killing it off? Seriously. They're removing all the NWA planes, and replacing them with Delta planes. And soon you won't even be able to buy tickets on NWA, you'll have to buy them on Delta. It's more evil than Stalin and Hitler combined!

      Google bought the company (one guy and his app). The value for them is in the technology, not the reMail brand. They'll include the parts they like with the gmail service. The guy who created the app got a nice chunk of change from the purchase and a job at a company many would be excited to work for. This is capitalism in it's most basic form. A guy created something of value and was rewarded for it. If this qualifies as evil, you are in the wrong country.

    2. Re:Google saw a good thing... by furby076 · · Score: 1

      Uhm, already you can't buy tickets on northwest. Two weeks ago I called Delta and their flights sucked (i have frequent flyer miles) and asked about any sister companies. They told me to go to northwests website. I went to northwests domain and it routed me to...yup you guessed it Delta. I was back in the same boat :)

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    3. Re:Google saw a good thing... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

      Not only normal, as far as I know they've never deviated from that as their normal practice. Hell, grand central was closed to new registration for what, a year or two while they worked on it?

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
  6. Well.. by Jorl17 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    They do it because they CAN. Full-stop. Either we get together and do something about it, or we shut up and let them do it.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    1. Re:Well.. by Jorl17 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, and doing the crazy thing of answering myself, has anyone noticed the tags on the story? Great "journalism" why don't we just name it: "Google, evil, together, death", huh?

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    2. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?

  7. *Shrug* by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    Does it really matter?

    I mean, aren't there other email options available to iPhone users (I'm honestly asking - I don't use an iPhone). And if there are other options, it's not like the GMail app offered much other than a better search - on the phone. Surely, someone will offer decent search for any iPhone email out there at some point, no?

    This has been said many times before: if you don't like a businesses practices, don't use them. Something else will ALWAYS spring up to meet demand.

    1. Re:*Shrug* by guruevi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the iPhone already has an IMAP application called 'Mail' and since they added Spotlight search on the iPhone, full-text inbox searches are also/still possible.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:*Shrug* by MadChicken · · Score: 1

      Yep, DeepFish from the makers of PocketInformant: http://www.webis.net/products_info.php?p_id=deepfish

      No connection to the company, other than being a rabid supporter of PI...

      --
      SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
  8. it will be replaced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by something HTTP-based written with "Gwit", AJAX and lots of text based ads.
    also anyone who actually calls it "gwit" needs to be shot.

  9. I use iGmail for full body searches by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I downloaded the free iGmail specifically for the searching features. I use the regular iPhone mail app to read mail but it can not search in the body portion of the emails. If I need to do a search (For instance to see what I have bought through iTunes) I launch iGmail and us it's search feature. Apple really needs to think more seriously about their feature set. Full body searches is something that is very important for an email app.

    1. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Full body searches is something that is very important for an email app.

      I don't know why you like full body searches so much, but I consider them invasive and uncomfortable. But I guess if you like that sort of thing....

    2. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Good heavens. For a second I thought you worked for Airport Security.

    3. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by darrylo · · Score: 1

      I use the mobile gmail web interface in safari, as I find it much more useful than the Apple's minimally-featured mail app. Searching may not be instantaneous, but it's fast enough, and I don't need to waste precious iPhone storage.

      Sure, you need an internet connection, but that's basically true of Apple's app, too.

    4. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by pydev · · Score: 1

      Why don't you get a different phone, one that actually has a decent mail client?

    5. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

      Most important reason is that my phone is free. The built in email app works great(much better than my previous phones) for the other features I need. It just doesn't have the body searching feature. The iGmail is launched just like the built-in app so it is not like it is harder to use iGmail when I need it. If the phone didn't have some decent Apps for it then it would be much more of an issue.

    6. Re:I use iGmail for full body searches by pydev · · Score: 1

      Really? Where do you get a free iPhone?

  10. Sounds like a great time to build an app by aclarke · · Score: 1

    I think now would be a great time to produce an app that does "lightning-fast" searches of GMail inboxes... That would be (not very) quick way of finding out whether Google bought reMail to integrate it, or to kill it.

    Hey, maybe I found the missing step 2:

    1. Build email searching app
    2. *** GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE *** (darn, we have to buy ANOTHER one of these?)
    3. Profit!

    1. Re:Sounds like a great time to build an app by Darfeld · · Score: 0

      It's the step 3 which is missing. So it's like that :

      1. Build email searching app
      2. *** GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE *** (darn, we have to buy ANOTHER one of these?)
      3. ????
      4. Profit!

      --
      (\__/) This is Lapinator
      (='.'=) copy it in your sig
      (")_(") so it can take over the world
    2. Re:Sounds like a great time to build an app by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      That is what makes the speculation about "OMG, Google will buy all the devs in the App store!!!!" seem so transparently stupid.

      Producing an email application good enough that Google is interested in buying it for incorporation into some future scheme is a challenge. Producing unpolished(or even quite competent) "me too" clones of applications that Google has purchased in the past is fairly easy and the barriers to entry aren't all that high. If it became generally known that Google would buy anything, they'd have new iPhone devs crawling out of the woodwork for their slice of the easy money.

    3. Re:Sounds like a great time to build an app by maxume · · Score: 1

      There must be some reason that most businesses fail.

      I would speculate that a big part of it is that the people trying to start them are wildly irrational.

      (The idea being that this would lead to the expectation of nonsensical commentary about successful businesses doing rational things)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  11. How is this different from Apple? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I recall, there were quite a few commenters here that thought Apple was being a schmuck for killing google's phone app even though google's app replaced apple's phone app instead of installing itself side-by-side. Here, you've got google killing their competitors that are trying to mooch off their mail service. Sounds like pretty similar behavior to me on both apple and google's part since they are trying to stamp out a competitor who is getting a "free lunch" off their products.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    1. Re:How is this different from Apple? by delinear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe because there's a big difference between "killing" and "giving a huge bag of money and a job and the potential to integrate the app into the google codebase", regardless of how the Register/Slashdot try and spin the story title?

    2. Re:How is this different from Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google hasn't integrated the app, and they did already kill it, so the users are still screwed. In fact, the premium users are screwed even worse because they already paid for an app that won't be updated any longer.

    3. Re:How is this different from Apple? by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      Are you really trying to paint google, a company that did nearly $24 billion in revenue last year as the underdog getting smeared by the big, bad apple? Seriously, what you're implying to me that X multi-megacorp. is the underdog because Y multi-megacorp refused to let X go and displace Y's native app on Y's own device. In any case, why don't you have any sympathy for apple's programmers who are being displaced by google's programmers going around writing all these apps? Think of the number of salaries involved at apple that programmed that phone app.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    4. Re:How is this different from Apple? by chrb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine a small town market place.

      Scenario 1: The owner and landlord of the market invites all traders to come and sell goods in his market. However, he also owns a fish store. When a trader selling fish turns up, he refuses to let this trader into the market place. The other traders become worried that, someday, the owner and landlord of the market may stop them from trading on the market, too.

      Scenario 2: A trader on the market sells a new type of hot dog. This hot dog is particularly tasty and quickly becomes popular. The owner and landlord of a different market notices this, buys the hot dog trader's business, and relocates it over to his market place.

      These two scenarios are not the same. In scenario 1, the owner of the market has a conflict of interest between his landlord activities, and his other business activities. He is imposing a statist solution on the customers to his market, where competitors to his other business interests are refused access to the market. As a result, there is less competition, and customers lose out. In scenario 2, a company bought another company (which is okay), and then chose to sell the products of that company in its own market place. The actions of the market owner in this scenario have not reduced choice or imposed restrictions on the customers or traders of the market place, because the other food vendors are still free to make yummy hot dogs. Free and equal competition has been maintained, which is a good thing for capitalism and freedom (note that this would be different if the market owner were in a monopoly position - in which case, acquiring other companies and restricting their products to one particular market would reduce customer choice, as the customer of a monopolist has no realistic option of buying in an alternative market place).

    5. Re:How is this different from Apple? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... and the potential to integrate the app into the google codebase

      ... while killing the application in the interim for no apparent reason.

      Even if it's the case that Google eventually integrates the feature into their code base, why shouldn't people have the option to continue to buy and use* the iPhone Search App if they so choose? This is no different, really, than Microsoft pushing people off Windows XP...except at least Microsoft has *some* software as a replacement.

      Perhaps I'd be singing a different tune if reMail's features were already being made available through a Google and it was comparable to the reMail App, but we're simply not there yet. Microsoft routinely did the same thing throughout the 90s: buy (or attempt to buy) a product/company that was popular, drop sale of the product ASAP, eventually integrate an inferior version of the product in DOS/Windows (most often focusing more on extending Microsoft's reach than providing a great product), and watching as people who bought the old product eventually switch because it's rather pointless to hold on to a dead product that will never be updated again. If Microsoft (or Google) really cared about their customers, they would have continued development and sale of the product and integrated features based upon what users wanted (this could be determined in large part on the point at which almost all users stop buying the standalone product because the integrated version is good enough**).

      *Yes, people can still continue to use the App if they already bought it, but tough luck to everyone who would have bought it who now has to wait and hope that Google eventually builds a replacement that works on their phone.

      **Ironically enough, Microsoft seemed perfectly willing to do this with their own products (Windows Plus! and Outlook spring to mind). The simple fact that development teams were required to create a product worth buying above the minimal standard instead of being able to slub along with the knowledge that people didn't really have a choice in which option they'd like (since options were removed) seemed to spur some good competition. In general, if what Microsoft (or Google) offers as the standard is so good, then there shouldn't even be market for the supplemental software (and yes, sometimes people are idiots and this assumption fails), so continued development should have been halted when it no longer was profitable***.

      ***Obviously, this isn't simply by the standard of Microsoft/Google; for companies like Microsoft or Google, $100,000/year on a product might appear horrible, but it's pretty decent for one self-employed developer. But clearly, cutting off sale of the product right-off makes it impossible to even evaluate profitability.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    6. Re:How is this different from Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really trying to paint google, a company that did nearly $24 billion [google.com] in revenue last year as the underdog getting smeared by the big, bad apple?

      well, if you're going by that metric, i guess apple would be the bully in that case.

    7. Re:How is this different from Apple? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      why shouldn't people have the option to continue to buy

      Maybe there is a right that I am not aware of? (I can't even believe I am brining up this point)

    8. Re:How is this different from Apple? by JAlexoi · · Score: 1
      Since this is Slashdot, I just have to correct you.

      Free and equal competition has been maintained, which is a good thing for capitalism and freedom

      Free and equal competition is good for free market, and has no impact on capitalism.(Probably free market is the worst enemy of capitalism)
      Capitalism can survive and thrive without any competition and freedom.(Somehow, Americans think that capitalism, freedom and "free market" are inherently linked)
      There are a lot of examples where freedom is opposed to capitalism.

    9. Re:How is this different from Apple? by npsimons · · Score: 1

      Maybe because there's a big difference between "killing" and "giving a huge bag of money and a job and the potential to integrate the app into the google codebase", regardless of how the Register/Slashdot try and spin the story title?

      I know, it's like people don't RTFA around here, but also skip vital parts of the summary. And I quote: "[the app developer] will be returning to Google as a Product Manager on the Gmail team". Anybody else catch that? Apparently, he used to work for Google! And now he's going back. Of course, if someone was really a mac fanboi, they could claim that this guy was a plant, and Google is just yanking him back to to fuck with Apple. Personally, I don't mind anyone fucking with Apple; anyone who can get Jobs' panties in enough of a twist to get him to say "do no evil is bullshit" has got my vote. Still, I don't trust Google either (I'm buying an N900 over any Android based phone), but better that the 800lb gorillas slug at each other rather than us (the little guys).

    10. Re:How is this different from Apple? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      why shouldn't people have the option to continue to buy

      Maybe there is a right that I am not aware of? (I can't even believe I am brining up this point)

      Who said anything about "a right"? People (me included) are complaining that Google's actions are counter to what its [unofficial] motto of "Don't be evil" would suggest and point out the actions are like those of Microsoft. The only seeming defense offered by the GGP was one of "well, they bought him off" which is exactly what Microsoft has been known to do. This is clearly all a point of PR and what people at the social level choose to do. No one was discussing the legality of it, since it's all very clearly legal.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  12. Microgoogle? by kungfugleek · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Man that sounds a lot like the kind of stuff people hate Microsoft for. Instead of making a better product, buy the competition and kill it. Couldn't Google have made their own iPhone app that did lightning fast searches of gmail?

    1. Re:Microgoogle? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes. Their option was to hire on talent and reward the original creator of something they found interesting; or create their own, integrate it, somehow subtly alter their backend to break the competitor's work, and destroy their competitor's user base (along with any hope of making money).

    2. Re:Microgoogle? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Their option was to hire on talent and reward the original creator of something they found interesting; or create their own, integrate it, somehow subtly alter their backend to break the competitor's work, and destroy their competitor's user base (along with any hope of making money).

      The "subtly alter their backend" part is unnecessary; without it it would be standard competition and reasonably acceptable if independent development was cheaper than acquisition of the extant technology. And there's nothing in the first option that prevents them from continuing development of reMail (if they wanted to rebrand it, they could, you know, rebrand it, upload the new App, *then* take down the old reMail). And if/when they can offer a replacement for the newer rebranded reMail App through some other way for iPhone users, they could take down that rebranded reMail App. Really, at what point was there a need to pull sale?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    3. Re:Microgoogle? by npsimons · · Score: 1

      (over-lengthy over-analysis of satire snipped)

      You're missing the point; the GP was comparing Google's actions to the MO of Microsoft. Many people in this thread seem to be blowing things way out of proportion and trying to make Google look worse than Microsoft and Apple look like the victim. Apple and Google are about equally evil, with Apple perhaps being more on the evil side because of it's lockin, random banning of apps, closed dev environment, and (meager) support of DRM. But neither of them are anywhere near as bad as Microsoft. Anyone who's been in the computing industry for a long enough time can tell you that (unless they have an agenda). Personally, I'm not fond of Apple; the only reason they are not in Microsoft's position is that Microsoft kept all the power (and abused it) to itself. If it hadn't of been for Microsoft, *everyone* would be bitching about Apple; they're really not all that different.

      As for Google, I don't trust them either; that's why I don't use their email or their phone. Still, given the choice between working for/with Google or Apple, I'd go with Google in a heartbeat. I doubt Apple would pay me to write Linux software :)

      Really, at what point was there a need to pull sale?

      At the point Google realized it was cutting out the ads on Google mail? At the point that they decided it would take too many resources to support or continue development? Also note, we have no idea whether the *author* pulled it of his own free will, or Google forced him to. Considering he was successful enough with this app, if he had wanted to keep working on it, he would have. And everything points to Google integrating this apps' features into their Gmail service; end users lose nothing. iPhone/Gmail users will still have these features. Who loses here? Apple? Can't see how, and even if they do, who cares?

    4. Re:Microgoogle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this app was downloading the email through the IMAP interface their probably isn't a lot Google could do to break it without breaking all the other email clients that use IMAP, at which point they might as well discontinue the IMAP access, which will lose them a fair number of users which may add up to more lost revenue than the cost of buying this company.

      This is all assuming that discontinuing this app was the primary reason for buying the company, which it may not be.

    5. Re:Microgoogle? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point; the GP was comparing Google's actions to the MO of Microsoft.

      And this is precisely Microsoft's MO: buy out a company/person, kill off the product they produced, and maybe integrate some of the technology into a future product.

      Many people in this thread seem to be blowing things way out of proportion and trying to make Google look worse than Microsoft and Apple look like the victim.

      Some people are trying to make Google look like Microsoft, not worse than them. If that were the comment I were responding to, then I wouldn't have said anything. Instead, the person tried to defend Google's actions. As for victims, the only victim I see are iPhone users. I could bugger all care about whether Google's actions hurt Apple.

      Apple and Google are about equally evil, with Apple perhaps being more on the evil side because of it's lockin, random banning of apps, closed dev environment, and (meager) support of DRM. But neither of them are anywhere near as bad as Microsoft.

      Yea. Apple is evil. They're no victim.

      Anyone who's been in the computing industry for a long enough time can tell you that (unless they have an agenda). Personally, I'm not fond of Apple; the only reason they are not in Microsoft's position is that Microsoft kept all the power (and abused it) to itself. If it hadn't of been for Microsoft, *everyone* would be bitching about Apple; they're really not all that different.

      Feel free to bitch about Apple. It doesn't bother me. Feel free to bitch about Microsoft. It doesn't bother me. Feel free to bitch about Google. It doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when one company's (or person's) evil is used to justify the evil of another in so far as people simply acquiesce to that evil. Even if evil is necessary to combat evil, it doesn't make any of the evil non-evil. In this case, there's no particularly pressing reason for Google to be evil.

      As for Google, I don't trust them either; that's why I don't use their email or their phone. Still, given the choice between working for/with Google or Apple, I'd go with Google in a heartbeat. I doubt Apple would pay me to write Linux software :)

      Well, it's all a matter of level of trust. You can never wholly trust any organization (even the FSF) because invariably organizations are made out of multiple people who inherently share at least slightly different views on things. But, yes, I'd likely trust Google over Apple in many circumstances.

      Really, at what point was there a need to pull sale?

      At the point Google realized it was cutting out the ads on Google mail?

      Except as others, further down in the comments, note that there are places were Google has allowed for activity that cut into ad sales for Gmail (IMAP, specifically). So, that doesn't a particularly consistent reason.

      At the point that they decided it would take too many resources to support or continue development?

      Perhaps, but if it only took one person to support and develop the application up until this point, it's hard to believe that it'd take any more after Google's acquisition. More to the point, even if they chose to no longer support or continue development, unless Apple requires that sort of thing to remain in the App Store, what not just continue sale with the disclaimer "This App is no longer supported"?

      Also note, we have no idea whether the *author* pulled it of his own free will, or Google forced him to. Considering he was successful enough with this app, if he had wanted to keep working on it, he would have.

      "'Google and reMail have decided to discontinue reMail's iPhone application, and we have removed it from the App Stor

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  13. Ceased "not being evil" by cpscotti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.
    Now they are just the new microsoft or another corporate giant .. buying whatever they can.. It's like a kid with too much money in their pockets:
    they almost stop coding.... they just buy!

    Remember google wave? blehg... google buzz? bleh...
    Even Google Chrome is not what people imagined it would be..
    Next big thing google will do (if they finally manage to pay enough) is buying facebook or twitter.

    1. Re:Ceased "not being evil" by toriver · · Score: 1

      It's more like they are redefining evil to suit their needs.

      "Provide no privacy" should be more fitting, what with the Buzz cock-up and all.

    2. Re:Ceased "not being evil" by bcmm · · Score: 1

      It is weird but nowadays is easy to realize that google ceased "not being evil" sometime back there in 2005~2006.

      Google's IPO was in 2004, and what was to happen was obvious then. Publicly traded companies can never be more than amoral, and anything that looks like "doing the right thing" is a kind of marketing.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  14. Profit by LtGordon · · Score: 5, Informative

    10 START COMPANY
    20 COMPETE WITH GOOGLE
    30 GET BOUGHT BY GOOGLE
    40 GOTO 10

    1. Re:Profit by Abdul+the+Newt · · Score: 0

      I like this program - I was thinking it's time to start creating some Google competitors so I can retire early. The next optimization would be to simply "Announce Starting Company to Compete with Google" and wait for the money to transfer.

      --
      Webcomics Posted Monday-Friday http://www.lunatechfringe.com
    2. Re:Profit by IANAAC · · Score: 2, Funny
      That kind of code would never get you hired.

      Anywhere.

    3. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's an Apple II Plus BASIC coder you insensitive clod!

      And I'd hire him here at Legacy Old Fart Software!

    4. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of code would never get you hired.

      Anywhere.

      uh,,, the first line is start company? I'll admit im not the best with BASIC Procedural programming, or reading Pseudo-code... but, where in the program do you get the idea he needs to get hired?

    5. Re:Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Replace "GOOGLE" with "Cisco" and that was the resume of a guy I worked with. Seriously, he was a founder of four different startups they acquired and one company they owned 25% of.

  15. Kill, or offer it up for free? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    Is the headline misleading?

    Has Google ever once just bought a competing product to shut it down?

    I suspect they will roll this into Gmail service, the the free Google iPhone app.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  16. bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it"

    I have no facts but I must opinionate...

  17. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another possibility is that Google may have snapped up reMail just to kill it, not because reMail was a competitor to anything Google had, but because reMail made the iPhone better

    That's just silly. Nobody is going to say "I was going to buy an iPhone, but now it doesn't have reMail so I think I'll go with a Nexus One instead," and Google knows this.

    1. Re:Really? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't have killed it to bring users over, they would of killed it so iPhone users just couldn't use it.

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, well that makes sense. Pissing off potential future-customers is a great business move. Next week, they're going to knock over a box of kittens for the hell of it.

  18. free full body searches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I get my free full body searches at the airport; just mumble something about "AlQaeda" and "Death to America".

  19. Buy me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town

    Dear Google,

    I'm planning on becoming a successful iPhone developer.

    You can send me a check now, thank you.

  20. That's how to keep shareholders happy by IANAAC · · Score: 1

    Now they are just the new microsoft or another corporate giant .. buying whatever they can.. It's like a kid with too much money in their pockets: they almost stop coding.... they just buy!

    I don't know how much coding Google still does or doesn't do these days, but...

    Shareholders want to see short term profits, and buying other companies is the way to achieve that. And you'll see this very same behavior from every publicly traded company that has cash available for other purchases.

  21. Imperial march by junglebeast · · Score: 2, Funny

    DUM dum DUM dum DA-DUM dum DA-DUM!

    DIM dim DIM dim DI-DUM dum DA-Daaaam!

    Him hum ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum --
      ha-him hum, ha-hum-ha hum...

    And so began the Imperial March of Google...

    1. Re:Imperial march by HamburglerJones · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow! Thanks -- I never knew the words to the Imperial March until now!

    2. Re:Imperial march by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sadly I think he's got the tempo off! Its more of a 4/4 at ~80Hz.

  22. Or... by asdf7890 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They have effectively employed a Developer (or more than one if the company wasn't a one man band) for work on their mail related projects taking his existing work on a (popular?) mail related application as part of his CV. They were perhaps on the lookout for a developer with good experience in both mail protocols and UIs for mobile devices (I can see that skillset fitting in to their plans as I understand them). Said developer/company does not have time to maintain/support the iPhone app long term on top of new responsabilities in the new position with Google so decided to stop, and Google has not particular interest in keeping it going by passing it to another team either because the market for it is too small for them to care or it just isn't the direction they want to send a dev team in at the moment.

    There doesn't need to be any anti-Apple consideration here at all. Apple users need not worry: if there is a good market for such an application someone will step up to the bat and create one. In fact I predict many will turn up soon as people try follow in this fellow's footsteps - you just need to hope one of the new projects will be both good and long lived...

  23. Google is getting scary... by adosch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is well into the big double-digit count of Google headlining or top subject matter in slashdot news stories in the last 5 days, with ranging topics from broadband internet backbone building to social network privacy with Buzz to energy buy-ins, now iPhone app buy-up monopolization. Unstoppable force, friends.

    I know Google has done extremely well diversifying themselves and has their fingers in anything, but no one treats them like monopolizers that Microsoft became.

    Hopefully reMail turned a good profit on this... and wasn't squeezed by the big corporation.

    1. Re:Google is getting scary... by npsimons · · Score: 1

      I know Google has done extremely well diversifying themselves and has their fingers in anything, but no one treats them like monopolizers that Microsoft became.

      Get back to us when Google "has talks to buy" a small company, then turns around and implements that small companies' flagship product without any deal, bundles it with their OS (that they force on vendors) so tightly it takes a crowbar to remove it, and makes their OS incompatible with that small companies' products. Multiple times. And that's just one of many examples off the top of my head.

  24. it's for the people by pydev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Companies like Google buy small companies mainly for the people. Think of it as a big hiring bonus.

    I suspect other than that, reMail simply didn't figure in any of their business plans.

  25. It's happened before... it'll happen again by DogDude · · Score: 5, Informative

    DVD Shrink was arguably the best DVD copying software (freeware) out there until the developer was hired by Nero, one of the leading companies that made competing DVD copying software. Since their software was doing the same thing (albeit, for a price), there wasn't any technical information that could have been garnered by hiring the guy. The developer just stopped development on the software immediately, and hasn't updated it since.

    There's no reason to think that Google isn't doing the same thing.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:It's happened before... it'll happen again by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Redundant
      • Write a very good freeware
      • Get bought out by competing proprietary vendor
      • ...?
      • profit
      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:It's happened before... it'll happen again by treeves · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, it still works. As does DVD Decrypter.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  26. Nail, meet head by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    Actually, this is a good case for why a developer would FOSS an application in the first place. Of course, if you're in "Please Google buy me out and make me rich beyond avarice" mode, then you wouldn't.

    How about creating a semi FOSS license that remains closed source, and immediately becomes FOSS or Public Domain should the company ever fold, or the software itself becomes otherwise unavailable.

    Kind of a poison pill of everlasting life. It would prevent applications from ever disappearing except by natural death (nobody wants it any longer).

    It takes two to tango; there is no doubt that the project author made the conscious decision to join Google knowing that he would forfeit control of the project. Google probably even said point blank "we want to put your expertise to work *for Google*" with the implication that otherwise, he was only really benefiting Apple.

    Who here really thought Google would buy an iStore App company (the developer) with the intention of profiting from the App's sales? Anyone? Buying it to 'absorb' the IP (i.e. kill it) was the only real outcome.

    1. Re:Nail, meet head by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to kill it.

      And I'd like to add another thought. That is that if you buy software, there is no implied contract that the company you're buying from will exist in three months, leaving you holding software that may or may not be functional in a very short order.

      I've seen this happen with all sorts of nifty utilities that go the way of the Dodo bird, simply because the company disappears.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Nail, meet head by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      They didn't have to kill it.

      That's like saying a lion that comes across a wounded gazelle in the jungle "doesn't have to kill it". Sure, it doesn't *have* to but you know damn well that it will, without blinking. Google has no reason to buy an App store developer and pay him to keep developing App store apps, plain and simple. Do you think they were looking to make an investment?

      Back to the law of the jungle; Google merely did what anyone would do when faced with a conflict: throw money at it. This app was developed buy a guy so he could make money (hence why the app wasn't FOSS/free for all uses.) Google came along and made him a better offer, and he took it.

    3. Re:Nail, meet head by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      And I'd like to add another thought. That is that if you buy software, there is no implied contract that the company you're buying from will exist in three months, leaving you holding software that may or may not be functional in a very short order.

      This is a good argument for why things like periodic software licenses should be outlawed - you should be able to continue to use an otherwise perfectly functional piece of software even if the company that supports it is no longer in existence - or even more likely, just doesn't want to support it any more. Software/music/movies should be required by law to be functional (or have no mechanism to make artificially inoperative) in perpetuity after purchase. If a company doesn't think it can recoup development costs and/or make sufficient profit from initial sales, it should close its doors and stop making software, provide for-charge support to make up the difference, or charge more for the next product.

      Same general concept should apply, in my opinion, to things like music, movies, books, cars, hammers, toothpaste, haircuts, health care, whatever. I don't understand why people think producing software, music, movies, etc. should be immune from the possibility of being a lossy investment - which is what you call any investment where the return is negative. Unfortunately governments seem all too keen recently to try and make all investments no worse than break-even.

      Sometimes you just have to let a loss be a loss!

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    4. Re:Nail, meet head by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because a hungry lion is exactly the same as Google. And successful software developers are exactly like a wounded gazelle. And non-rational animals are exactly like rational (debatable I know) people running corporations.

      Where's Analogy Guy when you need him?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Nail, meet head by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult here: what are you talking about?

      Google is a predator, not prey. Is Google a threat to other companies? Yes. Has anyone tried to buy Google because they were a threat? No. Google is a predator, QED.

      The engineer; he is one man, he is prey. Has a one man company ever competed with the likes of Google, Apple, etc (while they are still one-man companies)? Men like him (and, probably, you and I) get bought and sold day in and day out, the only flaw in this analogy is that the prey like being caught/exploited; it's a quick way to make money. This guy was prey, QED.

      Finally, corporate rationality vs. that of a lion. I would argue that if anything lions are more rational; just because they act in self interest does not make them irrational, if anything it makes them more so. Google, on the other hand, often acts out of obscure self interest (through PR/political stunts, giving things away for free, etc) which to some may be 'rationality' but to an outsider it is the opposite. Google, in this case though, behaved in perfect self interest, and snatched the prey before it could be a benefit to a competitive animal (Apple).

      It is a shame that Bad Analogy Guy seems to be taking the day off; we have to put up with this thought out shit!

  27. Re:worse than MS by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Googleis Worsedan Microsoft, interesting name for a child.

  28. my analysis of slashdot drone responses by prawn_narwp · · Score: 1

    This is all sideline commentary. It's like watching poker on TV and thinking/assuming you understand what's going on in their minds:

    Slashdot-bot response #1: "Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing."

    Who says they haven't been already? You get big enough and it's growth by acquisition -- though you could argue that Google bucks the trend. That it intends to grow organically while acquiring. Anyway, it's all a big wankfest unless you're an investor, or run a business affected by it. If you're a corporate drone, it's just sideline talk -- get the fuck back to work (talking to myself too :)).

    Slashdot-bot response #2: "So much for _that_ motto... as if they lived by it in the first place."

    I say people read into it way too much. I mean, it's notable that no other company would share the same motto but don't look at it as official legislation. "Don't be evil" has a history and has morphed into more that what it was -- which I say was just a small group that came up with an interesting corporate core value.

    Slashdot-bot response #3:
    "So they simply killed it because it did not bring them any revenues!"

    No - how do you know that? This just freaking happened a few days ago. You somehow have seen/read/understood the paperwork of the deal? Will it come back in some other form? Was it just to get the programmer?

  29. Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    reMail provided a capability similar to Gmail's search that worked with IMAP accounts and mail providers other than Gmail

    Since part of Gmail's competitive edge is good search technology, reMail was a substantial competitive threat.

    Now by buying and killing them, their search capability is no longer available on the mobile platform. iPhone users will have to use gmail and Google's built-in search instead of a third-party IMAP provider in order to get a decent search experience.

    Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on e-mail search in particular.

    1. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Effort to protect an illegal(1) monopoly

      (1) Citation Needed

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    2. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing this competitor protects Google's monopoly on search, and on e-mail search in particular.

      Except that Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, or email search. They may have a "monopoly" on Gmail search, but if that's the case, then it's only as illegal as Apple's "monopoly" on computers running OS X. If somebody doesn't like any of Google's services, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from going elsewhere.

    3. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All you need to have is a few deep-pocket competitors lobby the government and you will become an illegal monopoly. That's why Ticketmaster isn't an illegal monopoly - no deep-pocket competitors.

    4. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by PPH · · Score: 1

      Effort to protect an illegal(1) monopoly

      (1) Citation Needed

      Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 1.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google isn't an illegal monopoly as described by the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    6. Re:Effort to protect an illegal monopoly by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Google isn't an illegal monopoly as described by the Sherman Antitrust Act.

      Indeed, given how many organizations provide webmail and/or search and how competitive and healthy that market is I'm wondering where that idea came from.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  30. Troll by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Does reMail have say some sort of patent.

    No doubt this is for the future.

    I say it is either to:

    A) Develop their own "App" to access Gmail over Android (or whatever Google phones are called then) and they want to use a technology or expertise developed by reMail

    or

    B) reMail has a patent, or Google will file for a patent using reMail technology, that will enable them to boot/restrict/make pay licence fees to Google any phone company that wishes to access Gmail.

  31. iPhone users should be used to this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is their problem that it's someone other than Apple who's capriciously killing apps from the App store? Boo hoo, I am Jack's crocodile tears. Apple hasn't exactly bent over backwards to accomodate iTunes on competing phones either after all, what's one mail app?

    1. Re:iPhone users should be used to this by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      holy completely unrelated issue, batman. If you want to complain about apple (and be slightly relevant), complain about them buying logic and killing the windows version. Or buying shake and killing the windows version (and eventually shake itself).

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  32. How to Do No Evil by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    The Google EZ-Plan to Do No Evil.

    1. Eliminate Evil Competition
    2. Soak up customers
    3. Be really nice to customers.
    4. Keep being nice to customers.
    5. After being well established as a monopoly, keep being nice to customers.
    6. Rule world as benevolent ultraconglomerate.
    7. Wait until after complete world domination to turn evil.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  33. You have it all wrong by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    This is a common mistake ... Google's slogan isn't actually "Don't Be Evil"; it's actually "Don't Be Apple."

    1. Re:You have it all wrong by Cili · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the difference

  34. Video of Alex by PineHall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Video of Alex is available at the Alex website.

  35. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? No Score:5, Funny comment as yet? You people are lame.

  36. Whack-a-Mole by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a case of Google in a Microsoft's clothing.

    Even M$ in its heyday couldn't buy up every App Store gold rusher. But targeting a tactical weak-point, like email, that's something possible. I recall some quip about M$ disrupting the supply of 3.5" floppies to spoil the OS/2 launch.

  37. Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When search is performed on the phone, google can't see what is searched for and either track it or monetize additional results.

  38. Looking for apps in development by jmcwork · · Score: 1

    They will probably start trying to find good apps as they are being developed and tested. That way they can acquire them before they make it to the app store. Not that I would sell out on the app I am developing. Not even for a big chunk of cash and a good job at Google. No way. (Call me...)

  39. BORG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so when do we get eric schmidt borg icons for google stories?

  40. Too complicated.. by Lysol · · Score: 2, Informative

    DeepFish is complicated - too many options. Something only a nerd would love. What was nice about reMail was simplicity, like Google itself.

  41. Spartacus by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Perhaps Google is just planning to buy up all the iPhone developers, one at a time, until Android is the only game in town,

    Woohoo, finally!!! "I'M SPARTACUS!!"

  42. Redundant by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Gmail already does lightning-fast full-text searches of your e-mail.

    And it can download IMAP mail and import it into your Gmail account.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  43. Hm... google have learnt from MS by Arimus · · Score: 1

    Why bother with the embrace, extend part - costs time and money; go straight to extinguish and save money in the longer term.

    --
    --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  44. Things go better with Coke and without evil by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    The only reason we know about "Don't be evil" is because Google told us. Thus it's just marketing plain and simple.

  45. Buy competition, kill competition by furby076 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds like the same strategy some other big computer company would do and get flamed for it. As far as I am concerned as long as they are going to make an equal or better product I couldn't care less, but still Google is exerting it's influence, money and power to control the intarweb.

    And with that, the troll/flame mods can post their displeasure for my anti-Google statement.

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
  46. Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Couldn't Google just buy out Apple and kill it?

  47. Proprietary... by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why many people don't like closed source proprietary software...
    The original vendor of this software has stopped developing or distributing it, this would be bad enough and effectively turn existing versions into abandonware... But given Apple's distribution model, this software is now effectively completely defunct. What happens to all the people who paid for the non free version?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  48. Slowly slowly catchee monkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and observe Google turning into Microsoft

  49. Re:lulz - not even close by Locutus · · Score: 1

    what really was the value in the application when gmail already has search built into it? When I first read the headline, I was asking myself why would you want to copy all your gmail email onto the iphone just so you can search it on the phone as opposed to searching online. Is it because of all the holes in AT&T's coverage map and so offline searching and reading is a major feature?

    What seems to make sense of all this is that Google has plans for ChromeOS, Gmail, and probably Android for local storage and search of gmail, docs, etc so killing this before it gets much traction makes sense. And since it was just an add-on for a service Google already runs, it's not anything like what Microsoft does and has done. Nothing like them purchasing Coopers and Peters to shutdown its Java products. Nothing like them purchasing DimensionX to shutdown the tools to build Netscape based products. Nothing like them purchasing the antivirus email server vendor and shutting down the Linux support, etc, etc, etc.

    so really, how is it the same?

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  50. ph34r g00gl3 by h2k1 · · Score: 1

    Google is evil! let's start using bing!

  51. Google: You can buy MY app if you like by opie2k1 · · Score: 1

    Hey Google, If you're in the market for a charades game app, my game 'PartyWord' is always open for bids or how about you go crazy and purchase the rights to my interactive fiction book 'Beer, Women and Bad Decisions' - I swear I'll give ya a reasonable price!!

  52. You got that wrong by Via_Patrino · · Score: 1

    The "do no evil" is how about Google deal with its users, not with the competition, in this case IPhone from Apple.

  53. Apple is just being Apple by HannethCom · · Score: 1

    Apple has always been a cutthroat company under Steve Jobs. Be it competitors, customers, or even themselves (Apple Computer vs Mac). Bill Gates credits Steve Jobs for teaching him how to run a company in his book.

    So it isn't Apple is the new Microsoft, it is just Apple up to their normal evil ways. Some people have just put them on so high a pedestal that they keep missing the knifes in their back weather they are slowly worked in there or are being stabbed really quickly.

    That being said, Microsoft is still evil.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  54. Fixed that for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    • Write a very good freeware
    • Get bought out by competing proprietary vendor
    • profit
  55. GOTO is evil by Via_Patrino · · Score: 3, Funny

    GOTO is evil

  56. Re:lulz - not even close by Pojut · · Score: 1

    Near as I can tell, one of the differences is that the app supports searching the body section of emails...something which you can't do with the iPhone's standard email app. I could be wrong, but that's what I've gathered from the article & posters on this story.

  57. Zynga by RedTeflon · · Score: 1

    Google should buy out Zynga? They would infiltrate Facebook and can datamine to their hearts content. Just imagein this Google ad brought to you by Farmville & Mafia Wars.

  58. Google has acquired remail - news? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

    Why's this news? Loads of people have acquired it.

    After all, it's only $2.99.

  59. Potential users? What about actual users? by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

    And what of the people that had already paid for reMail? They won't be getting any updates or support for their product. Sucks to be them I guess, but hey as long as we can rationalize that "Do No Evil" thing by adding a parenthetical 'To Anyone We Care About,' it's all good.

    Hardball with Apple, lol. As if Microsoft was doing anything other than 'playing hardball' back in the old days when they were Slashdot's favorite bogeyman.

    1. Re:Potential users? What about actual users? by c · · Score: 1

      > And what of the people that had already paid for reMail?
      > They won't be getting any updates or support for their product.

      True. Nor would they if the author just got bored of the whole thing and went away, or got hit by a bus, or got a job doing something completely unrelated to e-mail, or Apple decided the app violated some obscure and unpublished rule about the evaluator having an off day, or... anything. Just one of the risks people take with buying software. Even open source suffers from some of those concerns, although in this sort of situation there'd be a chance someone would take over.

      > Hardball with Apple, lol.

      I don't see "don't be evil" to mean skipping along the beach holding hands with the competition...

      c.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  60. Do no evil? by mestar · · Score: 1

    This looks just like regular evil to me.

  61. Better? by LtGordon · · Score: 1

    for (i=0,i<p,i++){
        found(googleCompetitor[i]);
        googlePurchases(googleCompetitor[i]);
    }