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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

You had me at

[korbulon]

"Facebook Shuts Down."

Alas, two years too soon.

Lack of marketing

[tangent3]

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

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

FB had email?

[ripvlan]

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

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

[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: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

[ynp7]

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