Comments on: Google to consider Gmail changes
The search engine giant says it is "batting about" possible changes to its Gmail Web-based e-mail service, which launched last month to a chorus of privacy concerns.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Revealing Apple's 2009 Black Friday deals
November 26, 2009 4:55 PM PST
- Science untarnished by 'Climategate,' U.N. says
November 26, 2009 4:31 PM PST
- U.S., China help climate talks, but tangles remain
November 26, 2009 2:23 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I have been watching, horrified, as the attacks on GMail become increasingly vicious and have now reached the level of attempting to prevent the product from ever reaching the mass market.
I am writing this letter to lend to Google what it needs most in this battle--*moral support*.
The worst part of the outcry against GMail is that it has absolutely nothing to do with GMail.
Why do I say that?
First, privacy is a non-issue with GMail. Google has already addressed the real issues, confidentiality and security, more than adequately. The term "privacy" is used to evoke connotations of spies and peeping toms.
Second, Google has no power to coerce anyone to use its product. Google's only "power" is the strength of its products: its ability to offer its customers a deal worth taking. If a user does not wish to see ads or have Google retain residual copies of his correspondence, he can decline to use GMail. If the "privacy advocates" thought that users did not understand the alleged (i.e., invented) dangers of GMail, they could initiate a campaign to educate potential users on the "dangers" GMail or call for a boycott.
However, no one has called for a boycott. Why not? Because it would be a cosmic joke--everyone expects GMail to be a phenomenal success. Why? Because GMail is good--perhaps because it is great.
Why does the idea of a significantly improved, insanely low-cost e-mail service generate such an outcry?
The ugly answer is a combination of anti-corporatism, hatred of profit, and--more fundamentally--hatred of the good and the successful because they are good and successful. In today's culture, the more successful a company (or an individual)becomes, the more it is despised, shackled, and punished. Witness Microsoft, witness Martha Stewart.
If the widespread antagonism to success (particularly to *commercial*success) ever changes, it will be because the best, most productive, most profitable companies of the world--companies like Google--had the courage to stand up for themselves, asserting the fact that what they do is irreplaceably *good* and life-enhancing--and that their success should be celebrated--not vilified or destroyed.
Thanks, Google, for giving us your great products. Here's to a successful, abundantly profitable GMail.
Sincerely,
Blake Scholl
Seattle, WA
Email: bscholl@gmail.com
I have been watching, horrified, as the attacks on GMail become increasingly vicious and have now reached the level of attempting to prevent the product from ever reaching the mass market.
I am writing this letter to lend to Google what it needs most in this battle--*moral support*.
The worst part of the outcry against GMail is that it has absolutely nothing to do with GMail.
Why do I say that?
First, privacy is a non-issue with GMail. Google has already addressed the real issues, confidentiality and security, more than adequately. The term "privacy" is used to evoke connotations of spies and peeping toms.
Second, Google has no power to coerce anyone to use its product. Google's only "power" is the strength of its products: its ability to offer its customers a deal worth taking. If a user does not wish to see ads or have Google retain residual copies of his correspondence, he can decline to use GMail. If the "privacy advocates" thought that users did not understand the alleged (i.e., invented) dangers of GMail, they could initiate a campaign to educate potential users on the "dangers" GMail or call for a boycott.
However, no one has called for a boycott. Why not? Because it would be a cosmic joke--everyone expects GMail to be a phenomenal success. Why? Because GMail is good--perhaps because it is great.
Why does the idea of a significantly improved, insanely low-cost e-mail service generate such an outcry?
The ugly answer is a combination of anti-corporatism, hatred of profit, and--more fundamentally--hatred of the good and the successful because they are good and successful. In today's culture, the more successful a company (or an individual)becomes, the more it is despised, shackled, and punished. Witness Microsoft, witness Martha Stewart.
If the widespread antagonism to success (particularly to *commercial*success) ever changes, it will be because the best, most productive, most profitable companies of the world--companies like Google--had the courage to stand up for themselves, asserting the fact that what they do is irreplaceably *good* and life-enhancing--and that their success should be celebrated--not vilified or destroyed.
Thanks, Google, for giving us your great products. Here's to a successful, abundantly profitable GMail.
Sincerely,
Blake Scholl
Seattle, WA
Email: bscholl@gmail.com
William M Gary
Tech News Geek (almost)
- The truth
- by William002 April 20, 2004 5:55 PM PDT
- The people that are worried about GMAIL, know that they do not have to use it but the point of the matter is that they WANT to use it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)William M Gary
Tech News Geek (almost)