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."

34 of 223 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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...

    5. 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.
    6. 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.
  2. lulz by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. 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
  3. 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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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....

  7. 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?

  8. Profit by LtGordon · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  9. 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.
  10. 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...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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).

  15. 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.

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

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

  17. GOTO is evil by Via_Patrino · · Score: 3, Funny

    GOTO is evil