Originally Posted by johnkzin

Me.

That's not how I found out about Gmail. I found out about Gmail from the raves of early adopters. For years, I didn't believe them (it's just webmail after all; I had seen other webmail solutions, and they all sucked compared to a nice local mail client). Then a year ago, both in preparation for a project, and because I got a G1, I started to actually use Gmail. Turned out, the raves I had heard were pretty much all true.

I used to be a loyal Apple Mail user (well, actually, a NeXT Mail user ... Apple Mail just inherited the mantle). I reluctantly gave it up for Thunderbird, when Apple refused to fix a few issues in the IMAP client, over multiple versions. And, last year, I gave up Thunderbird. Sure, there are a few little things I wish I still had, but, for about 90% of it, I prefer Gmail.

I have also, for 15 years, been a die hard "run my own mail server" kinda guy. In addition to doing that at work. Google has pretty much put those things to bed ... not by forcing me to, in any stretch of the imagination ... but by simply offering a better alternative in almost every way. "Free" isn't the only dimension in which they're better. "Advertized in their search results" isn't the only draw to them.

Google isn't just leveraging the search engine success to monopolize email. They've created what are, honestly and sincerely, better email products.

I'm not sure I can say exactly the same about their other apps. I barely use their Calendar and Docs. I don't really use any of their other stuff. I can say that I find Google Sites a little annoying, but it has some promise. But my inability to say "better products", except with Sites, is due to my lack of familiarity with them ... not because they aren't better products.

Originally Posted by c0rt3x

Google is worse than Microsoft, Apple and Intel combined. Why? Because they (unlike the other big boys) keep their (evil) purposes in secret, and they're very good at it, thus their success.

Originally Posted by GeraldKo

Well, then, please explicitly "spill the beans" -- tell us exactly what Google's evil purposes are. Apparently you know the secrets.

Originally Posted by BatPenguin

So, let's see, Google was founded in 1998. Did they decide right away THEN that the date they would unleash their diabolical plans on the unsuspecting masses would be October 29th, 2012, or was this decided at a later board meeting?

Originally Posted by GeraldKo

Well, then, please explicitly "spill the beans" -- tell us exactly what Google's evil purposes are. Apparently you know the secrets.

Originally Posted by johnkzin

I used to be a loyal Apple Mail user (well, actually, a NeXT Mail user ... Apple Mail just inherited the mantle). I reluctantly gave it up for Thunderbird, when Apple refused to fix a few issues in the IMAP client, over multiple versions. And, last year, I gave up Thunderbird. Sure, there are a few little things I wish I still had, but, for about 90% of it, I prefer Gmail.

I have also, for 15 years, been a die hard "run my own mail server" kinda guy. In addition to doing that at work. Google has pretty much put those things to bed ... not by forcing me to, in any stretch of the imagination ... but by simply offering a better alternative in almost every way. "Free" isn't the only dimension in which they're better. "Advertized in their search results" isn't the only draw to them.

Google isn't just leveraging the search engine success to monopolize email. They've created what are, honestly and sincerely, better email products.

Originally Posted by mdl

Now I understand that Gmail is user-friendly. You don't have to set up your own software or server. But it certainly does not have anywhere near the flexibity and power as a good local client, such as mutt or gnus.

Originally Posted by BatPenguin

First you said they'll "start charging exorbitantly for the service as the lone provider", now it's competition you're worried about.

This is again turning into these "google is evil" discussions. They updated one of their programs. I'm happy about that, you seem to scream "murder!" and see it as a mortal blow to an industry that, for some reason, should have been allowed to exist and continue charging stupid amounts for a product that by modern standards really "should be free" as there are plently of free map services everywhere on the Internet. Navigation industry about to go under? Good riddance.

Why should we, as consumers, care if the navigation business is being forced into a "give your product for free/cheap and figure out how to make money otherwise" business model by somebody deciding to not charge for somethign that has been ridiculously expensive previously? Good for us. If Google messes this up and provides a service/product that's not good enough, there will still be a market for the other providers just like today.

Anyway, certainly in-car systems will stay around and there will be users for navigation gear that doesn't need a net connection.

TomTom etc. stock price seems to imply that the guess is that Google will not mess this up and the days of most people paying for a license might be coming to an end.

Uh. So of course Nokia shouldn't release Ovi Maps for free or include its price in the price of phones (as I think they do in some cases, probably more in the future), since this might hurt makers of other navigation software? These mobile systems come with all sorts of things, browsers, media players, navigators, email clients, etc. that some other company could be producing...are you similarly against Nokia including new features in updates that have been provided up until now by commercial applications? Selling navigation software for a system (Android) that has always included a very good map software doesn't exactly sound like the safest business to be in, to start with.

The Google/Android conspiracy theories have been around here long enough and I have no intention of taking part in those anymore, it seems like in order to enjoy the Maemo products, we need to first "denounce Google and Android".

That is just silly and really hurts the level of discussion over here.

But please: when you whine about Google's latest Maps offering update -- because, let's face it, it makes Android seem even more appealing to the ordinary consumer and Maemo conquering the world might look a bit less likely all the time -- consider if you'll be unleashing the same storm the day Nokia announces that they won't be charging for Ovi Maps anymore. That day will probably come eventually, the cost of Maps will be included in the price of all Nokia phones that come with it, that seems to be the safe way out for them. I expect to hear a lot of moaning about the fate of everybody who provides navigation software for Symbian/Maemo then. (Well ok, nobody provides anything for Maemo, but Symbian must have a few commercial navigation software providers somewhere in that wonderful Ovi store or some other place.)

Originally Posted by christexaport

I'm allowed to stand behind BOTH of those statements. I studied journalism and biomedical engineering, but I took a few business classes, and this is basic business rules. As long as there's one provider of any service, there is the chance that prices can rise AND competition will decrease. In the end, you'll have little innovation or push for improvement can stall for years.

Right now, the only real navi guys out there are Ovi, Google, and that's it. So Google will literally control US navigation unless Nokia can somehow get itself into the market. So we're already without much choice. See the implications? I don't like any map service that doesn't use Navteq maps, so I'd be SOL in the States.

Let's hope a competitor steps forward with similar pricing, or pretty soon, we'll all be having our lives siphoned by Google via mapping software without an offline component. I don't like using navigation software while connected to the web, only offline, to keep my privacy. Google wants the opposite.


This has nothing to do with Google, and everything to do with competition and innovation. I like Google's app, just not how it kills competitors. Its half their fault for not figuring how to leverage their products, but having one in control is bad news, whether its Nokia, Google, Apple, or anyone else.


That's not the point. The point is just like WalMart killed grocery in the South. We used to have Winn Dixie, Minyard's, Jewel T, Albertson's, and many other competitors in the DFW area, and now its just WalMart, Kroger, or Tom Thumb, unless you can afford Whole Foods and Central Market. There are less choices, bad produce quality at WalMart, meat prices and quality are nothing like Winn Dixie, etc. You never know what you miss until its gone. I see offline mapping as a thing of the past in the US without Nokia involved. Maybe this will get carriers into the licensing game with Ovi, but I'd still like to see a TeleAtlas branded app step forward, or Navteq will stop spending on improving map quality, and so on...


That market isn't going to continue to grow, as navigation is becoming a smartphone thing, and automakers aren't going to be able to keep selling $600 Navi packages when we already have them in our pockets. Mobiles are a big threat to ICE companies. There's alot of data on that issue all over the place if you're willing to pay for the research papers. Automakers are trying to figure how to use the mobile data connection and device better to cover the losses, hence media player ports, WiFi and USB connections, etc.


Also, Google has long been a customer of TeleAtlas map data, and now they're using the GPS data of its customers to create its own maps and traffic data. So how does Tom Tom, owner of TeleAtlas, make money now? By selling out, and it'll be cheap. So we'll probably see TeleAtlas sold again, too. Let's hope Google scoops it up, or maybe Garmin.


You make it sound as if I'm blaming Google for this mess. Its not all of their fault. Tom Tom had a bad business plan, and Garmin was too late to the party and owns no map data of its own. I just don't want any company running the market period. I enjoy my privacy, and Google isn't big on respecting it. Nokia is, but that's not the point. I want choices, and Ovi or Google may not be enough, especially if tied to specific OSes.


That's your opinion. Some feel that way, but this is more of a consumer protection stance for me. I don't use Google much except for search, but I see how they've taken over that, and can imagine if no other search engine existed. I don't agree with Google's privacy policies, either, and if you do, that's fine. This is an open source community, and certain philosophies will be prevalent. Don't hate, just realize some of the members here have experience with companies and organizations that have had Google-like philosophies, and they've negatively affected freedom of choices and options in the long run. You're free to like them, as do I, for the most part. But there's been some good points made, and you should research the root of these stances, not lash out at those that already have. For them, this is bad news. For you, it may be good. That's totally ok either way.


Its not silly. That you don't agree isn't either. We're all free thinkers. Just respect everyone's opinions.


Only if you place most importance in navigation. Not everyone uses it as much as you'd like to believe, and Nokia could easily match them in pricing and features over time. Their Navteq division is lucrative, and their map data is best in class. I hope they DON'T continue to charge for navigation, but I also hope someone can use TeleAtlas maps for an alternative. The fact they aren't charging for it isn't the issue. That less navigation options exist next year is. Cause is of no matter. The end result is bad for US.