Slashdot Mirror


Google Makes Emails More Dynamic With AMP For Email (techcrunch.com)

Google today officially launched AMP for Email, its effort to turn emails from static documents into dynamic, web page-like experiences. From a report: AMP for Email is coming to Gmail, but other major email providers like Yahoo Mail, Outlook and Mail.ru will also support AMP emails. It's been more than a year since Google first announced this initiative. Even by Google standards, that's a long incubation phase, though there's also plenty of backend work necessary to make this feature work.

The promise of AMP for Email is that it'll turn basic messages into a surface for actually getting things done. "Over the past decade, our web experiences have changed enormously -- evolving from static flat content to interactive apps -- yet email has largely stayed the same with static messages that eventually go out of date or are merely a springboard to accomplishing a more complex task," Gmail product manager Aakash Sahney writes. "If you want to take action, you usually have to click on a link, open a new tab, and visit another website." With AMP for Email, those messages become interactive. That means you'll be able to RSVP to an event right from the message, fill out a questionnaire, browse through a store's inventory or respond to a comment -- all without leaving your web-based email client.

17 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. boy do i not want that by cathector · · Score: 5, Insightful

    so many ways this is not a good idea.

    1. Re:boy do i not want that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google has never been about what people want. Google is about controlling people.

      Which day is assault-a-google-developer-day again?

    2. Re:boy do i not want that by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah....it actually is NICE, IMHO to have one thing left that is simple text and really doesn't even truly need anything more, that being email.

      I pretty much still have all my email client set to be plain text at least for my outgoing emails.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:boy do i not want that by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My goal is to spend less time in my email client, not more.

      Seems like their goal with this is to have you spend less time (per-message) clicking around the browser altogether?

      Their goal is to allow them to track you more. As AMP pages are served from Google AMP servers, this seems like it will help them a lot, regardless of the browser you use...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:boy do i not want that by cathector · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in addition to seeming like a bad UX on the surface, we'll get:

      * remote execution exploits, due to increased content complexity in the inbox.
      * data leak exploits.
      * buggy emails!
      * heaven for phishers.

    5. Re:boy do i not want that by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not surprising from Google, who insists on encoding even plain text messages as (would have been) shown above, base64. Hell, even /. won't let me post what Google would send -

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.

      And, /. is right. Google is full of clueless Internet noob lameness.

      Even plain old HTML is wrong in email.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. Email and "experiences" by ctilsie242 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am tired of "experiences". What is wrong with a simple, fast, low-latency interface for mail? Good examples of this are Thunderbird, Roundcube, or even Mutt. Mail doesn't need to be "edgy". It needs to be quick, and support the usual features, so I can read whatever is there, reply, have rules to send the latest message from $VENDOR to a specific E-mail box, and support PGP and S/MIME.

    Didn't we learn from the early 2000s with all the E-mail worms about "experiences" and "live content" in E-mails? Looks like Google forgot.

    1. Re:Email and "experiences" by thereddaikon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Amen. This just sounds like another attack vector and another reason for Chrome to gobble up even more memory.

    2. Re:Email and "experiences" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that there's a lot less money in that than something that's insecure and likely to break.

      We've already been through this with MS Office documents and PDFs getting additional functionality that just turned out to be a way of spreading malware. Documents, should have no scripting involved. They should display as consistently as possible and be basically static.

      It's amazing how arrogant and ignorant these people are in thinking that this isn't going to end badly. We've seen it work out badly from a historical point of view, and now we're getting to see it again.

      Not to mention the fact that this runs the risk of being like web standards back in the '90s where they were purposefully incompatible to force people to use a specific browser that had whatever arbitrary, pointless, bullshit feature the web dev had to use.

    3. Re:Email and "experiences" by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Email should be 7-bit ASCII for security and stability. If you want to attach a pdf or word document in order to compromise your security and leak your personal info, then the capability is there for exactly that purpose.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  3. I want my email STATIC, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, once a message arrives in my INBOX, I do NOT want it to change. I want it STATIC!

    Why do some people want to fix things that aren't broken?

    If you want a messaging platform with non-static messages, DO NOT CALL IT E-MAIL!

  4. Queue Exploits by nuckfuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The promise of AMP for Email is that it'll turn basic messages into a surface for actually getting things done.

    Things like increasing the attack surface of your e-mail client.

  5. Um, no. by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when companies jumped all over the html bandwagon for email? Outlook was especially awful at rendering, iirc, but generally the corporate design got in the way of the actual purpose, which was transmitting information.

    Thankfully, people realized this, and probably 90% of the email I see now is just text. Maybe with a logo or something,but that's all.

    Amp for email? That's just the html idiocy all over again, only now cached on Google's server for their data collection. No, thanks, please get lost.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  6. Get off of my lawn! by jenningsthecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And by the way, how will this affect one's ability to rely on emails as reliable historical, (and perhaps legal), documentation? Will this new bit of shiny render 'going back through old emails' obsolete?

    Then there's the prospect of full-on advertising in the body of an email. And will compatibility with regular email clients be maintained? I suspect not - Google and other players want us to do EVERYTHING via the browser, the better to control our 'experience'.

    And WTF is (FTA) "a surface for actually getting things done"? AFAIC that's my desk. This new scheme is a 'surface' alright - it smells like an attack surface to me.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  7. Re:Web-based email client says it all by Frobnicator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember the old fantasy that the Web would be the next operating system. Nobody really thought all that much about who would end up in control of that operating system.

    "Nobody really thought about it" really means you didn't think about it.

    Lots of people thought about it. During the Browser Wars of Netscape v Microsoft starting in late 1995, control over who owns the future was discussed all the time. Companies spent untold billion dollars fighting for that control. Microsoft spent several billion dollars trying to embed their browser into the operating systems. The Netscape/AOL deal was $4.2 billion with companies desperate to be in control. Various players have entered and exited the field, but the war is still going strong.

    Across all the companies, there have been several trillion dollars spent over the decades fighting for that control, and many companies were (and are) fighting to the death.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  8. Just Another Attack Vector by hduff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong?

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  9. Great by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    just what we need, more features to support advertisers.

    What's the use case for AMP in the context of a person sending another person an email?