Facebook Shuts Down @Facebook Email System

First time accepted submitter beaker_72 writes "The BBC are reporting that Facebook will end their email system which provided users an @Facebook.com email address in March. The official line from Facebook is that not many people have been using the service. Is that really the case or have they found it too challenging to monetize that part of their service? Did users stay away from this 'service' because they've become more savvy and recognized it for what it was — another way to harvest their data? Or is it the case that the market is currently saturated with free webmail services and there wasn't room for another one?"

Comments

Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[mlts]

I'm guessing that since FB requires an existing E-mail address to sign up, having @facebook.com would be redundant... not to mention the lack of a really decent E-mail client.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[i kan reed]

What's really annoying about it is the way they started by forcing people to use it as their contact address, and then those people suckered by their abuse now have people trying to reach them with a now-inactive system.

It's the same basic problem with any website that tries to force it's "neat new features" on users. Youtube and googleplus is a similar thing. When google plus inevitably fails(and it will), they're going to have to go through an elaborate shutdown process that impinges on all the other google services people use.

The point I'm trying to make(and no it won't reach anyone that needs to hear it, Dice) is to stop pretending your existing userbase will love and use your new services just because you tell them to.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[samkass]

Yeah, judging by the popularity of Gmail, people being concerned with their data being harvested doesn't seem to be a concern at all. I think it was just plain executed badly.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[nurb432]

For some it would be a way to add a layer to hide your real email account. But i agree, most wouldn't care.

I am sure they just didn't have enough users to make it cost effective.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Albanach]

Many users have been stung over the years by changing ISP and losing their email address. Or by not changing ISP, but their ISP changing their name and their email address going out the window.

I think most people have a hard time seeing Google or Gmail disappearing from the face of the internet. And for those that are concerned, they can use their own domain on Gmail.

However users may be less certain of Facebook's long term position. After all, look at where ICQ, MySpace, LiveJournal and the others are today. Maybe this is just a recognition by Facebook's own user base that they're happy to stick around for so long as Facebook is where things are happening, but that they have no great ties to the site and don't necessarily want to create them either.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[mcgrew]

Gmail took off because its interface was so much better than anyone else's webmail. I got my present webmail address when I kept losing my address when changing ISPs. Since I can use Thunderbird for a client for it, why in thw world would I want to change it? Especially since there's not only no compelling reason to, there's no reason to at all.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Archangel Michael]

Google+ isn't failing. Not by a long shot. It has features FB wishes it had. The issue with G+ that most people have, is that it isn't for announcing your latest bowel movement of Beibergasm of the day. Let the kiddies play on Facebook and twitter.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[MightyMartian]

What I don't like is Google trying to force me to make a Google+ account, and even get a little sneaky about it.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[The Good Reverend]

That's only because no one is using it. Maybe your friends post stuff you don't like, but that seems like a problem with your friends, not the medium.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[jandrese]

Having a better feature set is a moot point if you have no users.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[stdarg]

Not only did they have a better interface, they offered a ridiculous (at the time) amount of space. I used to use Yahoo mail, then they imposed a cap of 2MB (I think), and you had to pay to up that to 10MB. Gmail came out swinging at 1GB.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[_Shad0w_]

It just forwards all the e-mails to your @facebook.com address to your reigstered address now.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, FB is nice for casual contact with people I grew up with, and family. Informal and often child like. I have and use FB, but it is limited. People I have common interests in, but aren't "friends" per se are much better over on Google+. Just my opinion.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until the morons at Comcast take over from the slightly less moronic pinheads at Time Warner, and millions of "rr[dot]com" e-mail addresses evaporate. Them's gonna be some fuuuun times on the intertubes, I tell ya.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Archangel Michael]

360 Million active users ..... yup "no users"

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really annoying about it is the way they started by forcing people to use it as their contact address

every time i try to remove the @facebook.com email address from the list of contact email addresses i refresh the screen and its been auto re-added. every. single. time.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[loufoque]

You don't automatically get a Google+ account with a normal Google account?

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[loufoque]

No.
Gmail took off because it provided a free POP3/IMAP email service with a large storage capacity.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[c-A-d]

Many users have been stung over the years by changing ISP and losing their email address.

I moved my parents to a gmail account just because of this.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[MightyMartian]

Maybe you do now. But I've had my Gmail account for the better part of a decade.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't used to.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[interkin3tic]

What's the problem. If they trick you into making a google + account, and you never use it, it's not as if they get additional personal information from you that they don't already have. You pay nothing for it. Can people add you as... circles or whatever and tag you in photos without your approval? If so that seems like a problem independent of making you sign up for a + account.

The youtube real name controversy I can at least understand on some level. I can't sympathize too much since I suspect most people getting upset about that are just mad because their names might be attached to stupid and/or racist stuff they post there.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[i kan reed]

Honestly, I wouldn't know, I don't actually use facebook. I'm just projecting my anger for the principal in question at a relevant target.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[RobXiii]

Probably this. When they switched all my friends list over to @facebook.com without asking is when I finally deleted my account. Havent gone back since

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[tlhIngan]

It's the same basic problem with any website that tries to force it's "neat new features" on users. Youtube and googleplus is a similar thing. When google plus inevitably fails(and it will), they're going to have to go through an elaborate shutdown process that impinges on all the other google services people use.

Google's not going to shut down Google+. In fact, Google+ is central to their business. Google has admitted the main reason for G+ is to collect more user information. Given the unified privacy policy, the fact that Google can now track you through your use of its various products adds a ton of valuable information. And even if you don't "use" a G+ account, your use through YouTube etc, and those G+ buttons is monitored.

So no, G+ is NOT going to go away, because it's central to Google's business. Google even admits that while some people find it creepy, as long as they remain "good", they can get away with a ton of things.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[avandesande]

I have had my yahoo account since 2000, have never deleted any emails or run out of space. I suppose there are better options out there but it is convenient having the same address for such a long stretch of time.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[jodido]

If the interface is "so much better" why are you using Thunderbird? I won't use gmail because I think the interface is very hard to use. If all you want to do is send mail, it's even hard to find the "send" button.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Gonoff]

Do You have a Google account? Then you have Google+.
Do you have a Gmail address? Then you have Google+.
Do you have access to any Google service that is specifically yours (even search)? Then you have Google+.and every other service

It's all one big system. Some services are restricted by location - Google Music for example. If you have one service, you do not have to sign up for anything else. Just sign in. There's nothing sneaky about it. If you don't want some, don't use them. If you don't have anything in Google Music, you don't have to listen to it. If you don't post on Google+ I promise not to reply...

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Dishevel]

That is pretty much how they are. FB seems to be mostly stuff I do not care about from people I do care about. While Google+ is stuff I care about from people I do not know.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[anlag]

You don't, it will simply send you a friendly encouragement to go ahead and get on Google+ too. Think it arrived a week or three after creating the e-mail account, but it was a secondary (tertiary, etc) account and I wasn't paying that much attention.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Gonoff]

When you get to the bottom of your email, it's there. It's coloured in to make it easier to see, What's the problem?

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[dcollins]

Were you literally born yesterday? People made these accounts before Google+ existed, and then Google+ presences were forced on people after the fact without their consent or desire. That's sneaky.

As a side note: I have a Blogger account and whenever I go to the Account Personal Info page, there is a banner that says "Upgrade to Google+; Google gets better with Google+; Upgrade Now/ Learn More". Hasn't happened yet. Irritating to be nagged like that, but if it's forced on me I'll be more displeased.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[DerekLyons]

Google+ isn't failing.

There's pretty much no evidence of that whatsoever beyond the claims of G+ supporters that it absolutely, positively, must be true. The evidence in fact runs quite the other way - you very rarely see anyone giving their G+ contact info, and of the people that jumped ship from Facebook... well, there's been a steady stream of them coming back.
 

The issue with G+ that most people have, is that it isn't for announcing your latest bowel movement of Beibergasm of the day.

G+ isn't "for" anything, nor is Facebook. The issue I have with G+ is that from day one it's been feature incomplete and it hasn't gotten much better. It's a typical Google service - a day late, a dollar short, only mostly functional, and with a bizarre UI.

Re: Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[mcgrew]

I'm not using gmail, I use Thunderbird. But folks who were using a web interface to read their email had a reason to switch. I tried Gmail and it was indeed better than the web interface for my mail host, but I don't use their interface.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[waterwingz]

projecting your anger by posting something that is just plain and simply wrong?

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[arisvega]

It just forwards all the e-mails to your @facebook.com address to your reigstered address now.

Does it also read them?

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Gonoff]

Yes. I had a Gmail address long before. I also used it to log into other things. When they offer me a new service, I look and decide. I have not bought any Google books. I still have an account. Big deal.I have not made any use of their subscription music offering either but they remind me about it every time I go to listen to my own stuff.

We all know why Google likes to link its stuff? To track us better? That will be the biggest reason but it's probably just easier/cheaper that way. It makes my life easier with only one as well.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wanted to say, ikanread: Agree entirely, 100% correct, and very well said.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[steveg]

More than that. Many other Google services that used to be unrelated now require G+ to get full use of them. e.g., Google Talk became Hangouts and some of the functionality requires G+ to work.

But no, you are not required to get a G+ account even if you have other Google account based services. I still don't have one even though I do use Gmail, Google talk, etc. Those services periodically whine at me, trying to get me to sign up when I inadvertenty try to access a function that now requires G+.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[bbsalem]

Well, there are two sides to every story, so while Google+ is like LinkedIn, a platform for shameless self-promotion, it is not a place to have a decent discussion, nor is Facebook. Google has the historical archive for high-quality, if Wild-West, discussion and debate in the form of the USENET archive from its beginning in 1985 to a point well past 2000. What is telling about Google is that even though they had that information, they abandoned the advantages of both web-mail and newsgroups for supporting focused discussion between individuals who did not create the original topic post, for what we call Social Media and blogging.

Most of the reason social media sites suck, when they do, is because of blogging, because of what blogging doesn't allow participants to do. If your only interest is promoting some service or your business, I suppose blogging is fine. It is also OK for simple exchanges that are pretty much restricted to one topic exchanges, it is probsbly OK. Facebook is OK for what it is capable ot doing, regardless of Facebook's business model and the Big Data application. It is what it can't do and how that might be shaped by the business model of Google and Facebook and other social media companies that matters because it is degrading communication and discussion, things that should be allowed by someone to take place on a national scale as if the health of our institutions depended on it.

I have said over and over here that what the Internet needs is a resurrection of that style of the USENET newsgroup in a web model. It need only be text-only groups, and possibly a new topic hierarchy, but it needs to be global like Facebook is and it needs to allow for respondants to create new topics and threads without editorial staff moderation. This is like Slashdot with the current default UI and like Reddit, but the difference is that the structure of topics needs to be far more rich, like it is on USENET.

I think that my ideas don't get much attention because the blog has dominated the Internet for about 20 years and most poeple simply do not know about that structure of newsgroup posting or even web-mail. The ability to change topics, the ability to quote in reply and respond to that in context. These features, along with topic complexity and topic hierarchy, which are closer to Wiki design, now, are simply not known to most people, and the prevayors of social media have simply shaped what people say around the limitations of blogs. The reason may be the Big Data application, spying on you, but the result is far reaching. It gives web site owners and editorial staffs too much power to shape the conversation, and it hampers discussion between the respondents. It also enables trolls and abusers.

Re:Because people already have E-mail addresses?

[bbsalem]

No, it is a problem with the medium. The structure of Google Plus does not allow for any kind of exchange that doesn't stroke the ego of the person who originated the topic. Just try to say some dissenting or critical of a post on it and you will see that it has a self-censoring and self-correcting feel. That is because the design is centered on the self-promotion and the group of people who subscribe as generally glad-handers and yes-men for the promoted item. It is just a business forum and a rather closed one at that. It is not a place for anything other than business promotion, which is why it is boring to most people who have access to it. I have tried it, and have lots of pending messages, but I now ignore it and any requests to join circles, it is all spam. To me, Google Plus is why I think Google Is Evil, it does evil.

You had me at

[korbulon]

"Facebook Shuts Down."

Alas, two years too soon.

Re:You had me at

[Ralph Wiggam]

You think Facebook will cease to exist in 2 years?

Re:You had me at

[korbulon]

Merely hope.

Re:You had me at

[Ralph Wiggam]

You know that's definitely not going to happen, right?

Re:You had me at

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Re:You had me at

[korbulon]

You know that's definitely not going to happen, right?

I don't believe in definitely / definitely not, especially when we're talking about an overhyped technology company in the midst of a tech bubble. But it will probably still be around then. Sigh.

Re:You had me at

[Anonymous Coward]

He was obviously referring to the news posted earlier where a couple of researchers predicted Facebooks demise by 2016 based on Google's search result trends.

Re:You had me at

[Ralph Wiggam]

"Demise" like "losing a bunch of active users" or "demise" like "cease to exist"? If it's the second one, those are the worst researchers ever.

Re:You had me at

[ynp7]

I hope that they do take a huge fall just so they can change the company's name back to WhatsApp.

Re:You had me at

[jandrese]

AOL is still around. Companies can linger for a long time after they stop being relevant, especially ones that have a ton of cash on hand. Granted, I don't know how many more 18 billion dollar purchases Zuckerburg can make before they start having cashflow problems, but they don't appear to be hurting at the moment.

Re:You had me at

[barakn]

And the company's FAQs could be stored in WhatsApp.doc.

Email is an alternative to facebook

[timeOday]

Why I don't like facebook is because my family used to exchange personal updates by email, which I liked. When they joined facebook, that stopped. I don't want to be on facebook, so by not joining I shut myself out. This kind of pressure is exactly what makes facebook so viral.

When facebook was an upstart, playing nice with the status quo (email) benefitted them. Now facebook is the status quo, so alternatives do not benefit them.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[i kan reed]

Yeah, the email-facebook dichotomy really describes the changes in the web over the last few years.

Standardized tech-based distributed solution without central planning to centralized, secretive, over-advertized, manipulative hyper-corporate sites.

SEO and web 2.0 were poison pills that are killing the actual utility of the internet as a collection of content and systems in favor of "content providers" like facebook.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[StripedCow]

When my family subscribed to a plain old telephone service, they stopped visiting me. I didn't want to subscribe to Ma Bell. So by not joining, I shut myself out.
Fortunately, the U.S. Justice Department split the monopoly and required the telephone companies to play nice with eachother.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[DarwinSurvivor]

It's more like, "When my family switched from Verizon[1] to AT&T[1], they stopped calling me, but I don't want to switch to AT&T[1] because they tap my phone and are all-around douchebags. By not getting an AT&T[1] phone, I've shut myself out". Luckily the government mandates that they be compatible, unlike Facebook which can do whatever the hell it wants[2].

[1] I have no direct opinion of either Verizon or AT&T in this respect and the use of their names was simply because they were the first 2 well-known operators that came to mind.

[2] I do not believe that Facebook should be restricted in what it can and cannot do (at least as far as compatibility goes), I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between a website and a phone system.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[StripedCow]

I do not believe that Facebook should be restricted in what it can and cannot do (at least as far as compatibility goes)

In general, I am with you.
However, once an internet company reaches the point where it facilitates mass-communication, there should be rules. See the telephone example to see how things go wrong otherwise.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[MightyYar]

I'm one of those people who likes Facebook specifically because I no longer have to maintain an address book or worry about who to include on what emails. Just throw it all out there and let people who care read it. I wish Facebook weren't proprietary, but I'm not going to be a zealot about it - when it dies I'll just move on to the next thing.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[spxero]

While your comment is funny, the truth hurts. For the longest time my wife (then girlfriend) kept two phones, one on AT&T and one on Verizon. Because of her family on Verizon and me (and my family) on AT&T, it was cheaper for her to have two phones to talk to both sides than have an "unlimited minutes and messages" account on one service. YMMV.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[fermion]

This would be my impression. If people were 'more sophisticated' and worried about data harvesting, they would not use gmail. As it is, I don't know anyone who uses their facebook email. I don't see any difference between data collected on the site and data collected through email. It is probably just that no one is using it.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[ynp7]

Until this story, I didn't know anyone who remembered that Facebook email was a thing.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[timeOday]

That is why I DON'T like facebook. When I am sending a message to specific people, the focus is on whatever concerns us both. If I were just broadcasting information about myself for my (presumed) interested audience on Facebook, that interaction is no longer about our relationship, instead the only common factor is ME ME ME.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I finally closed my account after I saw friends/family posting things that I sent to them with an expectation of privacy. ("hey mom what do you think of my new jacket? OMFG YOU POSTED THAT ON FB WHY??") The problem is probably more so the people than the app but the app encourages people to do that. So along I go, further extracting myself from society.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[Sporkinum]

Aye, there's the rub. I never get emails from my sister anymore, and if I email her, usually no response. Dad still emails me, even though he's on facebook. Most of them are forwards from his pals though. Best response from both is to pick up the phone and call.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[MightyYar]

But it doesn't preclude you from using email, which most everyone still has. There is nothing intimate about multiple-recipient email blasts.

Furthermore, Facebook has personal-message capability. Aside from being proprietary, this is exactly the same personal interaction as email - though it kind of combines email and chat.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[anlag]

One doesn't have to rule out the other though. If I want to discuss recent events in the news or plans for the summer with my family, I'll e-mail them. If I want to have a go at the way the International Olympic Committee for screwing up a certain recent doping test before the ice hockey final, to get input from whoever cares to join in and perhaps even raise awareness in my wider circle of acquaintances, I'll post it on Facebook. Or Google+. I wish I could list Diaspora as an honest third possibility, but at the moment I'm afraid that would be slighlty dishonest. Anyway, social networks and e-mail don't necessarily always compete with one another. They also complete each other. It's all about context.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[Blaskowicz]

I feel like starting to write letters. People used to maintain address books, with actual real world addresses in them! Wow.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm one of those people who likes Nazi's specifically because I no longer have to maintain an address book or worry about a list of Jews. Just throw it all out there and hide the fact that it ever happened. I wish Facebook weren't proprietary, but I'm not going to be a zealot about it - when I'm found out I'll just move on to the next thing.

Re:Email is an alternative to facebook

[TranquilVoid]

I detest the underhanded way Facebook tried to funnel all email into their messaging system, but there are clear benefits to centralised communication in some situations, the most obvious being group conversations and event planning. These (and the personal web page that is your wall) is why Facebook took over email for a lot of communications.

On the flip side, look at attempts to use Facebook-style communication in the workplace with Yammer etc. It only gets used by marketing and sales to pat each other on the back. Communication about actual work is still done using email.

Lack of marketing

[tangent3]

How many people even know they had a free @facebook.com email address?

Re:Lack of marketing

[Kjella]

I knew, from when they changed my contact address without asking me. Made me just as pissed as when companies sign me up for newsletters I don't want just because I bought something from a site. I love to "abuse" the report spam button on those, I'm sure legally you have somehow gotten my consent but fuck you. Same with Facebook and their coup.

Re:Lack of marketing

[CronoCloud]

I didn't know, so yes I was like "What the heck, facebook gives you a @facebook e-mail address?"

That happened one other time to me when I was told (not long before the website was shut down) that everyone with a playstation2-linux.com forum account actually had a @playstation2-linux.com e-mail address, that would automatically get forwarded to the sign-in address. IIRC a couple of members who had known about for a long time used it as a throwaway/spam filter.

Re:Lack of marketing

[Cro Magnon]

I knew they gave me one. But I never used it, and if anyone had asked for my list of emails, I probably wouldn't have even thought about it.

They harvest enough private, personal info

[Anonymous Coward]

my emails shall always remain outside their greedy grasp. Same for Linkedin and other such services who promise convenience and ice cream if we just give them our souls. Not that email is private but at least it is private from THEM as long as I don’t play their game.

Re:They harvest enough private, personal info

[edibobb]

Ice cream? Nobody told me I could get ice cream!!

Re:They harvest enough private, personal info

[c-A-d]

That linkedin stuff really burns my bacon. Everytime I log in, they beg me to let them log into my Gmail account so they can find more "connections" for me.

No. Just because someone is in my email address book does NOT mean they are someone I want to connect with on a business level.

Could it be because of access issues?

[Kevin108]

I would think most people have little use for an e-mail address that cannot be accessed from work.

Do we get our original contacts back?

[scorp1us]

I remember when facebook replaced all of my contact info with @facebook.com addresses, the bulk update ripped through my phone and messed a lot of things up.

Can I now get my original contacts restored?

Re:Do we get our original contacts back?

[Blaskowicz]

No. You got "embraced and extended".

Re:Do we get our original contacts back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch, I thought that only happened in prison.

Not using.

[Anonymous Coward]

The official line from Facebook is that not many people have been using the service. Is that really the case or have they found it too challenging to monetize that part of their service?

Well, if folks aren't using the service then it's hard to monetize it, isn't it?

I think it's shame. Folks are getting a bit self conscious with their FB use. It's OK to post shit, but to use it as your primary platform for communication? Nope.

And everyone knows that FB is in the business to pimp user data, so the less you give'em the better.

Same for Google, btw. Although, they're smarter because they create gadgets to suck folks into their data mining.

FaceBook Glasses or tablets on the way?

way to piss off the few users they do have...

[Anonymous Coward]

way to piss off the few users they do have...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Email use on the decline in general

[aussiedood]

I think it's more because email use in general is on the decline. Facebook and other social media sites are the reason as people keep in touch with that instead of emailing. Couple that with the already entrenched services like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail etc and it's little wonder there was little interest.

Re:Email use on the decline in general

[Anonymous Coward]

Definatly not true.

In fact I now encourage email use to me over facebook, then I have the offline excuse for not replying to it.

With facebook, they get to see when you read the message and maybe when you are online.

When I book airplane tickets you want me to use facebook? i dont think so. I will just get LIKE spam and suggestion spam.

No thanks.

Re:Email use on the decline in general

[ynp7]

I bet you think that everyone lives in their mom's basement, too. Next time post with your name, you deserve credit for writing something so stupid.

Re:Email use on the decline in general

[aussiedood]

Definatly not true.

Really? The trend has been downward for a number of years for everyone below the age of 55, a much as 59% for teens. For those older than 55 there is an upward trend, but overall the trend is down. http://www.bostonglobe.com/bus... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12... http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/...

For once they aren't lying

[redmid17]

No one uses the FB email address? Why would they when they need a valid email to sign up already?

Re:For once they aren't lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotmail and gmail practically beg you to provide an alt .
See what is wrong with that? Both do it for emergency auth, supposedly, but with hotmail you are forced to give that or a phone #, or cannot even create the account.

Re:For once they aren't lying

[redmid17]

How is this comment relevant?

data harvesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were because people were concerned about their data being harvested, Google would also be turning off their email service.

Facebook Shuts Down...

[Anonymous Coward]

A thrill of hope. Drat.

Free icecream????

[nurb432]

Where do i sign up?

Data mining? Sure... but what about mobile foray?

[ProjectArcturus]

The Facebook phone flopped, or so I assume since I haven't heard about it in over a year. Think back to when it came out: Microsoft had the Live accounts back then, obviously there are your Google accounts for Droids, Apple iCloud accounts for iPhones, etc. If Facebook had more penetration into the cell phone market, maybe the idea of a Facebook-central account that starts off as your email makes more sense? Again, I knew little about the Facebook phone, so just conjecture. Buying WhatsApp seems to be a sign they're steering the ship in a slightly different direction, moving away from any hopes of the above.

FB had email?

[ripvlan]

ah - now I know why I haven't been getting email all of these years.

One thing's for sure...

[erp_consultant]

If FB shut it down it was only because they could not find a way to make money off it. Let's face it - everyone has caught on to these creeps and how they operate. Does anyone actually use their real name on there anymore? Does anyone actually sign up using their primary email address (with all your contacts and every important email message you have ever sent)?

FB reminds me a lot of Microsoft. You can only piss off your users so much before they 1) stop trusting you with their data and 2) start looking for alternative services. Microsoft has seen this happen over the past several years, particularly in the Consumer market. Witness the rise in Mac vs. PC sales. Witness Microsoft's almost complete lack of presence in either the tablet or mobile OS market. I think a lot of people just got pissed off with MS and started looking for other (better?) ways of getting things done.

Now lets take a look at FB. What do they offer? A place to post your photos, exchange news with your friends and a way to chat with them. So along comes Instagram and a lot of people switch to that for posting photos. Similarly, a lot of people have switched to Twitter for exchanging news information with their groups of friends. WhatsApp offers a way to chat with your friends around the world with no SMS charges, just like FB chat does.

So what is FB's response to this? They buy up Instagram and WhatsApp. Rumors continue to swirl that they are trying to buy Twitter. If you can't beat em, swallow them up.

What should be very disturbing to FB is that users are continuing to flee their service. Why? Because we don't trust them to be good custodians of our data. FB has a well documented history of terms of service head fakes and slights of hand.

If I were a FB user (and I'm not) I would be filling my profile with completely fake information, rendering their supposed advertising powerhouse completely useless. And if you have to go to that extent what's the point of even using it?

Re: One thing's for sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand the niche of FB compared to Twitter and Instagram. Instagram allows you to share edited smart phone photos one at a time. Well this is great for sharing those almost drunken noodles from last night, not so good for sharing your wedding album.
You bring up a not so accurate point about some people using there middle name in place of their last. This is not because of Facebook seeing who they are it about work, strangers, the police etc seeing who they are.
You have the right not to use Facebook, but you should really dropped the bold I am proud to be uninformed attitude.

Professional Email Address

[jellomizer]

I am sorry a Facebook.com email address is rather unprofessional, unless you actually work at Facebook.

Why is Facebook.com more unprofessional then say gmail.com?
Well for one, Facebook is in generally more informal, it is all about gossip and keeping contacts with your friends. While you use Google for real work too.

For your personal email it still needs a degree of professionalism, because that is what is going to be on your resume, and with other non-work related business contact.
Your work email isn't that good because you can change jobs and your email goes away.
The same if you use your ISP's email address.

Hotmail.com, AOL.com, Yahoo.com all still work too. However you can sometimes seem dated.

outlook.com could work too, but you seem like a Microsoftie.

I myself prefer to have my own domain name, then link it to whatever email service that I like a the time.

Re:Professional Email Address

[mlts]

I found that people judge you by your domain.

Custom domain -- professional.

@gmail/yahoo/hotmail -- hack.

You also get what you pay for. I pay for Exchange hosted E-mail for my "professional" account, and get top tier reliability... and nobody sifting through the mailbox for ads.

Of course, I do use the "free" E-mails. Might as well have all the FB stuff go somewhere, but if it is anything but junk, a "real" E-mail address is important, just like going to an interview for an IT position wearing proper clothing and not liquid latex and chain mail.

Re:Professional Email Address

[FuegoFuerte]

If you judge people based on their choice of free or low-cost email provider then you, sir, are the hack. I've been using Yahoo email since they bought Geocities (and used Geocities email before that, as back in the day they were the only ones to offer pop3/smtp access for free).

In all those years, there have only been a few noticeable outages, mostly very short-term. Their service is fast, reliable, and they keep making improvements. Why would I switch?

Re:Professional Email Address

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Judging by a domain is just pointless.

Re:Professional Email Address

[DerekLyons]

Do you also judge people by whether or not their home address is in a fashionable neighborhood? Whether their 'casual Friday' shirt comes from L.L. Bean or Wal-Mart?

Seriously, I imagine there are more inane and shallow things to just people on than their email address... but it can't be a long list.

Re:Professional Email Address

[CCarrot]

I found that people judge you by your domain.

Custom domain -- professional.

@gmail/yahoo/hotmail -- hack.

You read the Oatmeal too, don't you?

Re:Professional Email Address

[nwf]

If I'm hiring for a position in the fashion industry, then I may very well check out what clothes they are wearing. Same for someone wanting a job in the tech industry. An applicant with an aol.com or yahoo.com says they just aren't serious about their profession. If they are applying to be a secretary, then indeed, I could care less what their email address domain is.

Re:Professional Email Address

[ilsaloving]

If the email is for personal use, then no, it really doesn't matter.

If you're trying to sell yourself as a professional, then using a free email service *does* come across as unprofessional. Why? Because you can whip off a free email address in 5 minutes with no effort. You don't need to have put any thought into it beforehand, and you look like a potential fly-by-night service.

By simple virtue of the fact that someone has their own domain names, instantly says that they are at least trying for the long haul. Or at least, there's a significantly greater chance that they are.

Generally speaking, the harder it is to set something up speaks to how seriously a person takes said something.

Re:Professional Email Address

[DerekLyons]

The amazing thing is that, like all people with ignorant biases, you actually think these are reasonable statements.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Anonymous Coward]

In all those years, there have only been a few noticeable outages, mostly very short-term. Their service is fast, reliable, and they keep making improvements. Why would I switch?

Because Yahoo can cancel your email for no reason and you have zero legal recourse. Taking on that risk just to save the business $100/year is what's unprofessional. Email is a critical resource for most businesses

If you were opening a restaurant, imagine if your partner said, "I worked out an awesome deal with the landlord. I got us a $10/month discount on rent, and all I gave him was the right to evict us without notice!" Would use the word "professional" to describe that?

Re:Professional Email Address

[c-A-d]

my custom domain is lazy.... I don't think that's terribly professional...

Re:Professional Email Address

[c-A-d]

Yarr.... next time I should actually read what I post..

My customer domain is lazy"somethingsomething".... not terribly professional.

Re:Professional Email Address

[N0Man74]

When I see someone with a personalized domain name for their e-mail address, I tend to think they are either a narcissist, or they are over-compensating.

There's nothing special about registering a domain, and the idea that this conveys that the person is technically competent is utter nonsense.

I've known many idiots with their own domains, and brilliant folks with GMail accounts. In fact, I've only ever personally known one brilliant and competent guy who had his own domain (and has had it for about 20 years).

Re:Professional Email Address

[blogan]

I'm pretty sure having nummer1fan@beleiberfanatiks.com is going to ding you on the job interview.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Anonymous Coward]

A person who has any computer competency should have their own domain... even if it is one of the lame new TLDS like .tomato, .oopsididitagain, .belieber, or what other claptrap ICANN decides to allow.

Think I'm going to trust my company's co-loc services to someone with a .aol.com E-mail address as their primary contact? Maybe, but the first impression is very negative, similar to a real estate agent coming out wearing a full beard, liquid latex, high heels, and chain mail. May be a good agent, but boy, the first impression is not a good one.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Gonoff]

Exactly. Judging by a domain is just pointless.

Judging people by their clothing and speech patterns is too but interviewers seem to find it quite effective.

Re:Professional Email Address

[DerekLyons]

Generally speaking, the harder it is to set something up speaks to how seriously a person takes said something.

Generally speaking, you're full of shit. It's 2014, not 1994. Setting up a domain is about as easy as ordering a cup of coffee.

By simple virtue of the fact that someone has their own domain names, instantly says that they are at least trying for the long haul. Or at least, there's a significantly greater chance that they are.

You can set up your own domain, with it's own email address, just about as fast as you can set up a free email account. If you believe that a cheap domain and an associated email account set up by an automated script as soon as the person enters his credit card details can mean that person is 'more serious' than someone with a free account.... well, that's beyond laughable and well into the territory of terminally clueless.

Re:Professional Email Address

[DerekLyons]

No, it's not that anyone who doesn't think the way I do is biased - it's that you're biased. You're just too clueless to recognize it.

(Try reading the resumes, it's old fashioned and it means you actually have to work and think... but it works.)

Re:Professional Email Address

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, DerekLyons, really.

We don't just take a custom domain name at its surface and congratulate the sender as a technical guru. We view the e-mail headers. Is this domain hosted by Google's SMTP service? Well, that shows they can click through the sign up process on Google Apps.

Is this e-mail originating from its domain's MX and including DKIM, SPF, etc.? Well, then this person may know a thing or two more than the average DerekLyons.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Dan541]

If you judge people based on their choice of free or low-cost email provider then you, sir, are the hack.

People are also judged on their choice of free or low-cost clothing. Which is why the guy wearing clothes from the charity bin doesn't get the executive job. It's called professionalism. You wouldn't wear track pants to work in a professional environment so why would you use hotmail on your resume?

Re:Professional Email Address

[Dan541]

When I see someone with a personalized domain name for their e-mail address, I tend to think they are either a narcissist, or they are over-compensating.

Just like the guy who wears a suit to the job interview? I'm sure you'll be fine walking around in your underwear.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Dan541]

Generally speaking, you're full of shit. It's 2014, not 1994. Setting up a domain is about as easy as ordering a cup of coffee.

>

Which makes using a free domain even less professional.

Re:Professional Email Address

[Anonymous Coward]

While you use Google for real work too.

Any company that gives corporate email addresses with a gmail.com domain to its employees is not a company I want to work for.

Re:Professional Email Address

[ilsaloving]

The effort required to set up an appropriate hosting account is still orders of magnitude more work than filling out a 5 line form.

The point is that it demonstrates a bare minimum of technical competency, whether that is innate technical knowledge, or just being able to research a problem and following instructions. It's an unspoken interview question before anyone has even looked at your resume.

Again, if your primary job is a window cleaner, or a plumber, or anything else non-technical, then it doesn't matter so much as long as your email address isn't "yourpornstagename@gmail.com" as someone else pointed out.

But if you are in some kind of techncal role, and the best you can do is gmail address, it demonstrates that you are either not as skilled as you claim to be, or you simply don't care enough to eat your own dog food. Either way, I *will* hold that as a point against you, because the last thing I will do is choose to willingly work with anyone that has either of those qualities.

Didn't know it existed.

[EightBits]

I'm on Faceboook daily and didn't even know they had an email service.

It never worked? Functionally, really, never...

[plik]

When they launched this feature I was very curious how the integration would work, so I sent myself test emails from a few accounts. I never got them. I tried maybe a year (?) later? I also never got them. So I would consider that to be somewhat of a patent failure.

Re:It never worked? Functionally, really, never...

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Same experience here. The @facebook.com email addresses looked promising for a business use case for my employer, but testing showed it to be unusable because it failed to deliver emails to the Facebook users.

Maybe it's because...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the messaging system of Facebook is pure shit??

Just try to find a message from a couple of days ago, the interface is clumsy, slow and hard to use. And for some reasons the search box gives you completly irrelevant results. It's like using a webmail client in the late 90's but worst.

I tried but I didn't liked it... I'm going to stay with gmail.

Not popular

[Anonymous Coward]

In all the email addresses I collect from my customers, not a single one has ever had an @facebook.com email.

My scams!

[Anonymous Coward]

There go all my phishing scams that claim I work for Facebook.

Facebook email incredibly useful ...

[perpenso]

I'm guessing that since FB requires an existing E-mail address to sign up, having @facebook.com would be redundant... not to mention the lack of a really decent E-mail client.

Who doesn't need an extra email address? Facebook email could be incredibly useful as a spam bucket. Give facebook to the companies and organizations that you do not want to hear from but require an email for some reason.

Re:Facebook email incredibly useful ...

[Yebyen]

As if I don't already get enough spam on Facebook... no thanks!

(Actually, my facebook feed consists mostly of updates from The Onion, it's honestly a joy sometimes to visit the News Feed.)

lol no

[slashmydots]

Anyone who would see it as a privacy concern would not use Facebook in the first place. The only users left at this point are a bit more clueless.

Re:Or maybe...

[colfer]

And any email system is a PITA to run. And if your spam filtering is not as good as Gmail's, you will hear about it. I'm surprised web host ISP's have not outsourced this stuff off their servers - except the 3rd party email companies cost as much as web hosting itself. That tells you it is expensive to run an email service.

Re:Or maybe...

[erice]

Definitely. Facebook email is an awkward and crippled parody of email. It is something to put up with for communicating with people who don't use use real email or who you don't trust with your real email address. But, seriously, why would anybody want to use Facebook email for communication that doesn't involve Facebook?

school

[fluffythdestroy]

When google plus inevitably fails(and it will)

he didnt say its failing. it will fail. review in verbs please

Re:school

[Gonoff]

...it will fail...

What sort of time scale are you thinking of?
1 year - unlikely/No
5 years - vaguely possible but more likely to grow as it spreads around the world that people in the US are not aware of.
10 years - possible but it will be along with FB and some other things incorrectly labelled a social media like Twitter, Reddit and so on
20 years and beyond - probably but the tech world will be unrecognisable anyway.

Every computer idea will fail in the end so just saying that "it will" is about as meaningful as many politicians promises to help the poor or to keep away from rent boys.

lack of respect

[fluffythdestroy]

and don't even tell me the use for it since I have none because I use other services like twitter and reddit for my "other" needs that I can use.

anti-spam

[phorm]

Also a *much* better SPAM filter than competitors. They were also the first ones to offer a fairly hefty chunk of space, which later pushed MSN/hotmail/Yahoo and various ISP's to up their offerings to compete.

What is this FB you keep talking about?

[WillAffleckUW]

Is it something like that WhatsUpDoc app that Google bought that nobody uses (except maybe outside the US)?

I thought that died when MySpace bought them out ...

Re:What is this FB you keep talking about?

[Trax3001BBS]

Is it something like that WhatsUpDoc app that Google bought that nobody uses (except maybe outside the US)?

I thought that died when MySpace bought them out ...

Starts out as a way for college students to keep in touch with each other, "They trust me — dumb fucks," says Mark Zuckerberg http://gawker.com/5636765/face... so opens up to other colleges, then to the outside (non-colleges) ticking everybody off. Something you want no part of.

Wow this really sucks for anyone who use it

[Anonymous Coward]

I signed up for some websites via my @facebook.com email address. God forbid I need to reset my password, then I'm just totally fucked aren't I?

email is so 10 minutes ago

[gelfling]

Tweets and Snapchat are the pushing the attention span envelope at this point.

Google = NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

no thanks

That's stupid; you're stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

yourname@google.com or yourname@yahoo.com are perfectly professional e-mail addresses.

yourpornstagename@google.com or yoursportsteam69@yahoo.com are not professional e-mail addresses.

yourname@yourpornstagename.com is a custom-domain e-mail that is not professional.

yourname@yourcompany.biz is a custom-domain e-mail that is not professional.

And if wasting a shitload of time on nonsense made something more professional, we'd all still be using snail mail!

Re:That's stupid; you're stupid

[Dan541]

You can tell who the free-webmail users are in this thread.

None of the above

[R.Mo_Robert]

Nobody used it because it sucked. My recollection is that it was basically another way to use Facebook Chat at first, around the same time that Chat and Messages were confusingly combined into one. I read a comment above that says it just forwards it to your registered e-mail address now. Regardless of whether they were able to monetize it or not, I can't see the appeal, and I bet nobody relied on it.

crappy address

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if I could get a four letters or less address like my hotmail, yahoo, aim, and live I would probably use it. That's just me though, plus I have a thing for nice usernames which I have a bunch of. It started with Diablo 2 and illegal battlenet account names made very very early like (=^_^=) sadly after d2 I let a good 1000 brute forced illegals die. Don't blame me it's not my fault Chinese StarCraft players used passwords like 1234 4321 it was the 90's and I was a teen.