Does anyone want Gmail?

DGMacphee · Sun 05/09/2004 06:45:08

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sun 05/09/2004 03:47:34
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 05/09/2004 02:41:59
Quote from: Evil on Sun 05/09/2004 00:01:42
Who doesn't need a full 1000mb of mail goodness!?

Obviously -- many people are going to think that, which means Google is making a shitload load of money on the ads.

Hotmail, Yahoo, and every other free email provider with any kind of large userbase make a shitload on ads too. However, they don't provide 1gb of storage.

But that's what I'm saying, Blender-boy. The 1 gig stoarage is an incentive for people to sign up with them. That's why Hotmail and Yahoo are shitting their pants -- because if people have a 1 gig stoarage, who needs Hotmail or Yahoo? Thus, users forget about their hotmail and yahoo accounts and both companies suffer a decline in their advertising client base. Google rakes in all the leavers of hotmail and yahoo (as well as a lot of cash from ad companies).

Ad companies would pay bucketloads for the userbase google has. And it's basically the same thing as the iPod topic a while back. Only difference is Google aren't selling you details to spammers (at least not to my knowledge. I haven't read their privacy policy yet, but I'm guessing they don't since they have spamguards).

shbaz · Sun 05/09/2004 06:53:36

It seemed as though you were hinting that it was some kind of evil money making scheme. I only meant to point out that it isn't nearly as evil, for every reason Evenwolf pointed out.

I've read a lot of horror stories about the privacy policy, so I read through the entirety of the terms and conditions. To my understanding, no personal information is given away or sold and the sole reason it is probed (by bots only) is to give relevant ads, just like when you use the search engine.

The only way I could see personal mail being leaked is by the clause which states that if a subpoena was issued, they'd give up the mail readily. Basically, I didn't see anything in there that I wouldn't expect from every other free service.

Red_Armadillo · Sun 05/09/2004 07:43:56

Sent to everyone who included their name. When Edwin finds out what they are and genuinely wants one, I'll gove him one.

DGMacphee · Sun 05/09/2004 15:09:40

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Sun 05/09/2004 06:53:36
It seemed as though you were hinting that it was some kind of evil money making scheme. I only meant to point out that it isn't nearly as evil, for every reason Evenwolf pointed out.

Calling Fox Mulder! We have someone who can read minds! And it's a good thing that someone has the power to point out what I was actually thinking even though I wasn't actually thinking it.

But seriously, I wasn't implying it was an "evil" scheme, so please don't second guess me. However, it is a money making scheme because Google is a company like any other -- profit is their motive. I also said it's similar to the stuff in iPod thread though less scummy because, as I said, there's no sale of info to spammers. And the ad companies seem more legit with Google than your usual "HERBAL VIAGRA AND DEBT CONSOLIDATION".

I'm not against Gmail -- I'm just staing the obvious: They're going to make a dump truck full of money from the ads.

QuoteI've read a lot of horror stories about the privacy policy, so I read through the entirety of the terms and conditions. To my understanding, no personal information is given away or sold and the sole reason it is probed (by bots only) is to give relevant ads, just like when you use the search engine.

Which is pretty much what I said.

QuoteThe only way I could see personal mail being leaked is by the clause which states that if a subpoena was issued, they'd give up the mail readily. Basically, I didn't see anything in there that I wouldn't expect from every other free service.

I'm not saying that there is a difference. I'm sure Google's privacy policy is perfectly legit, and I said so previously. But what I am saying is that Gmail is using the 1gig mailbox as an incentive for customers and such a move is going to make them lots of $$$.

So, I don't see why you have to read things into what I'm saying. I'm not hinting anything here.

Red_Armadillo · Sun 05/09/2004 18:17:30

Yeah,

I see what you meant, it pretty much goes without saying. I think Yahoo! is the one making the most off of ads though, they seem to have at least 1 add for every page.

evenwolf · Sun 05/09/2004 19:04:03

You can only prove that Yahoo sells the most banners by stating that. Google just doesn't have any banners, but they do have a lot of text ads. More so than Yahoo.

shbaz · Sun 05/09/2004 19:07:29

I'm not trying to argue about anything? You said you hadn't read the privacy policy, so I wrote what I gathered from it.

Red_Armadillo · Sun 05/09/2004 20:40:10

Okay,

1) Yahoo! has different banners for EVERY page.
2) I'm sure that web pages pay more for banner ads than they do for text ads
3) The text ads are less intrusive and annoying, I'd prefer a bot went through and gave me somethign related to the message.