Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Gmail Cracks Down on Third-Party Notifiers

Posted by timothy on Sat Aug 28, 2004 03:03 PM
from the their-sandbox-their-rules dept.
crtfdgk writes "Recently, Google's gmail service has attempted to change login protocols to block third-party gmail notifiers that alert you to new email. Google has now taken it one step further and created a word-identification script filter as part of the login process. Personally, I find Google's gmail notifier annoying since it sits in my taskbar and doesn't have popup notification, unlike many other worthy Firefox or Mozilla plugins that feature gmail notification. Shouldn't I be free to use whatever third party software to check my email? Will we be seeing controls on browsers that can view gmail next?"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ghettoboy22 (723339) * <scott.a.johnson@gmail.com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:05PM (#10098005) Homepage
    Shouldn't I be free to use whatever third party software to check my email? Will we be seeing controls on browsers that can view gmail next?

    My feeling is that if it's a *FREE* service (meaning you don't pay Google anything to use Gmail) then no, you shouldn't be free to use whatever third party software you choose.

    Sorry but when you're not even a paying customer, I feel no love.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) * on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:09PM (#10098049) Homepage
      My feeling is that if it's a *FREE* service (meaning you don't pay Google anything to use Gmail) then no, you shouldn't be free to use whatever third party software you choose.

      I share your feeling for the most part but I really don't understand their actions. Why not stop wasting your coding time during a beta program stopping third parties from making their experience better and work on adding the things the users want (ie POP3, Opera support, HTML-only, etc?)
      • Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)

        by moonbender (547943) <moonbenderNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:43PM (#10098299)
        ...Opera support...

        Note that Opera 7.6 [opera.com] (currently in beta/development) has enhanced Gmail support. I just saw there is actually an entire website devoted to Gmail on Opera [scss.com.au].
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by chris_mahan (256577) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:52PM (#10098359) Homepage
        because you want to control the ping to one every ten minutes. Imagine if 3 million people had notifier on and they were pinging your server every ten seconds each. That's 300,000 hits per second. No good.
        • Re:Well... (Score:4, Funny)

          by droleary (47999) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:17PM (#10098541) Homepage

          because you want to control the ping to one every ten minutes. Imagine if 3 million people had notifier on and they were pinging your server every ten seconds each. That's 300,000 hits per second. No good.

          Gee, if only there were some way to track down those abusers by virtue of their abuse rather than the nature (third-party) of the app doing the checking. You know, some sort of identifier like an email address or something . . .

        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Otto (17870) on Saturday August 28 2004, @07:42PM (#10099748) Homepage Journal
          because you want to control the ping to one every ten minutes.

          Two minutes. GMail's official Notifer checks every 2 minutes.

          The big deal is that they want third party apps to stop actually logging in and pulling the full HTML for the main page, and start copying what the notifier does, which is to pull down something much smaller, simpler, and less CPU intensive for google.

          Also, it prevents their statistics from being skewed by apps acting like actual people. What, you think they're not logging stats on this stuff?
          • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

            by tylernt (581794) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:37PM (#10098652)
            The 3rd party scenario is relatively CPU and network intensive. You have to handshake a TCP connection, then poll the server, then close the connection again. And you have to do it every X minutes (and most users will set X to as small a number as they can).

            Google can set it up so that the client establishes a TCP connection and then using periodic keepalives, keeps it up. Then instead of the client polling every X minutes, the server can simply send the client notification (one little packet) when there is new mail. By eliminating polling and TCP handshake overheads, it's a little more server-friendly. It might require a little more RAM to keep track of all those TCP connections, but RAM is cheap and each connection only consumes a few bytes.
            • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by nutshell42 (557890) on Saturday August 28 2004, @05:28PM (#10099018) Journal
              So with that neat little trick *google* saves some tcp overhead? Hello? How many searches are they delivering each second? Each search has to use much more cpu-time/ram/bandwidth than a tcp connection attempt. I can't imagine that the few tech-savy users who don't use the official client would even be noticable on the monthly server bill.
            • Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)

              by follower-fillet (140975) on Saturday August 28 2004, @09:31PM (#10100305) Journal
              > The 3rd party scenario is relatively CPU and network intensive. [snip]

              > Google can set it up so that the client establishes a TCP connection and then using periodic keepalives, keeps it up.

              The official Gmail notifier simply uses standard http/https requests to do its work. The only difference between it and the "unofficial" method is that it retrieves a binary encoded data block and processes that.

              See these forum postings for more details I documented:

              Official Gmail Notifier protocol documented [outer-court.com]

              --Phil.
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Arcanix (140337) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:56PM (#10098390)
        POP3 support would destroy the entire reason google provides the service, the ads that are displayed. Unless you want the ads embedded in your e-mail which is far worse than seeing them next to your messages on the web site in my opinion...
        • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

          by darc (532156) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:55PM (#10098774) Journal
          According to Gmail's feature wishlist : (you can get this by going to help and hitting send feedback)

          done! Address book import
          we'll try Opera support
          we'll try Ability to send messages with HTML formatting
          we'll try POP3 access
          working on it Plain HTML version of Gmail
          working on it Ability to save a draft

          So this is not entirely out of the question.
          • Re:Well... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by kalidasa (577403) * on Saturday August 28 2004, @10:13PM (#10100503) Journal
            By "We'll try POP3 access" do they mean letting you get your email via POP3 from gmail accounts, or using the GMail interface to read your existing POP3 accounts (and store your mail). I thought the latter, myself.
          • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by mindstrm (20013) on Saturday August 28 2004, @05:29PM (#10099024)
            Realistically, they keep the backlash to a minimum by stopping it early. If some great tools came out now, and then google suddenly axed them when they went out of beta there would be even more people saying google sucks, is unfair, etc...

            In a public beta like this, PR is still very important. The brand is already at stake. To treat it any other way would be stupid. People won't care about the Beta distinction later.
    • Has anyone considered the possibility that the reason they're blocking these notifiers isn't because they have a problem with the idea, but rather there isn't a standard upon which they've settled on?

      What I mean is, Slashdot bans people when they abusively pull RSS feeds too often, and ask people to only pull RSS once every 30 minutes, and no more often than that. It's possible that these programs are pinging the crap out of the server, essentially DDOS'ing the sytem with mindless queries every few seconds to every few minutes. If the notifiers only queried once every half hour, there would be no issue, but hen people would find it useless since there would be up to a half hour delay on being notified of new mail.

      I think therein lies the crux of the matter.
    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by randyest (589159) on Saturday August 28 2004, @05:44PM (#10099101) Homepage
      You are correct.

      Moreover, the only sort of person who could describe Google's changing of a free beta tool's interface as "cracking down" is someone who has never himself been cracked-down upon.

      This isn't "cracking down." But at least it wasn't an YRO [slashdot.org] story.

      If google's free gmail broke your favorite notifier plugin and that really upsets you, then you're taking free email far too seriously.
      • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by waynelorentz (662271) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:52PM (#10098358) Homepage
        You don't have to if you dont want to, but if I do and I find that useful than I believe I have every right to.

        There's that word right that people keep abusing. "I have the right to this... I have the right to that." Bottom line is -- no, you don't have the right to a lot of things. The rights you have are very clearly spelled out by the laws of your country. In the case of the United States, the Bill of Rights. I don't remember the constitution being ammended to include people having the right to leach off of other people's work.

        Like many people before you, you confuse a "right" with "I really really wanna. Waaah!"
        • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by belroth (103586) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:18PM (#10098546)
          The rights you have are very clearly spelled out by the laws of your country. In the case of the United States, the Bill of Rights.
          That rather depends upon your philosophical outlook to law.

          View 1) everything which is not explicitly allowed is forbidden.
          View 2) everything which is not explicitly forbidden is allowed.

          Your call : does your Bill of Rights define all of the rights which you have?

          • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Zackbass (457384) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:40PM (#10098672)
            It is actually a VERY easy to settle issue. Start by reading it, and when you're doing with that learn some of the history the surrounded its creation. Read the Federalist papers. Read the opinions of the various framers. Many of them were VERY vocal.

            Here's a hint about what they say: view 2 is correct, view 1 was the framers' worst nightmare. One of the major concerns in the adoption of the bill of rights was that people might eventually start to believe view 1.
          • Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:42PM (#10098683)
            Your call : does your Bill of Rights define all of the rights which you have?

            No, it specifically limits the US Government's ability to curtail our rights. Our Constitution specically states that any rights not enumerated in it are reserved to the states or the people.

            As a side note, it applies to our government, not private citizens and contracts that they undertake. Which is why , when people start screaming "Company X violated my 1st amendment rights" I realize they have no idea about what they speak.
          • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

            by no soup for you (607826) <jesse...wolgamott@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @05:02PM (#10098838) Homepage
            Your call : does your Bill of Rights define all of the rights which you have?

            Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        • That's exactly why (Score:4, Interesting)

          by wurp (51446) on Saturday August 28 2004, @09:44PM (#10100367) Homepage
          That's exactly why Patrick Henry, among others, was *opposed* to the Bill of Rights - because people like you would say it was a complete list of rights, rather than a list of minimal guaranteed rights among many other rights.

          What it boils down to is that you have whatever rights you have the ability and willingness to demand. What _that_ generally boils down to is that you have whatever rights your culture grants you. It is a bad, bad move as a culture for us to decide people have some minimal set of rights that can be enumerated somewhere - instead, keep pushing the envelope of your rights until it includes everything that doesn't hurt someone else.

          That said, I don't believe we have a right to force Google to make it easy for 3rd party mail notifiers to work. It did miff me until someone pointed out how their notifier could be much more efficient. I wouldn't be surprised to see them solidify the notifier API and make it a public release after they have tested it for a while.
  • by Patik (584959) * <cpatik.gmail@com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:05PM (#10098010) Homepage Journal
    Google is already working on support for Opera, POP3 access, a plain HTML version of Gmail, and many other things [google.com]. I think Gmail will continue to add more freedom, not take it away.

    Who says Google is trying to stifle 3rd party apps? It is still beta, they are still fixing things, and nothing has been finalized. Instant Messenger services change their protocols occasionally but they don't block 3rd party apps.

    Either way, if you've got a Gmail account, be sure to give them your two cents [google.com].

    • Instant Messenger services change their protocols occasionally but they don't block 3rd party apps

      Bullshit! Yahoo just did this very thing. They changed thier protocol in their new releasd that broke 3rd party apps. Yahoo, like others, do not publish protcol documentation or supply APIs, it is up to 3rd party programmers to reverse engineer it to get the 3rd party apps to work.
    • by gordyf (23004) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:13PM (#10098081)
      IM services have tried repeatedly to block third-party apps. Both AIM and Yahoo have tried to block third-party clients.

      Yahoo blocking [earthweb.com]

      AIM blocking [arstechnica.com]

      "AOL made changes to their proprietary protocol (called OSCAR) that would ferret out anyone who wasn't using the official client."
    • by apothegm (809113) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:40PM (#10098285)
      People need to realize that Gmail is simply a means for Google to deliver more advertising clicks. Free email is simply the means to an end. They've run the numbers and figured they can build a web-based email client, buy a mess of storage, and create their own click-stream for possibly cheaper than it would be to have an army of business development folks sell AdSense to every crappy website.

      Now, Opera and plain HTML versions of Gmail make sense in this context because it's a relatively easy way to increase the numbers; there's no technical reason they haven't supported that yet. Their engineers just haven't gotten around to it.

      External POP support is a little more dubious: "In the future you will be able to access Gmail messages from non-Gmail accounts for free or at a nominal fee." [google.com] My bet is on the nominal fee. You can be sure they're going to start charging for POP access if they notice a significant drop in ad impressions for web-based Gmail 'cause that's going to mean a big drop in and CPM deals their sales folk are doing.

      And the "beta" program? People, it's viral marketing. It's the ultimate technical shrug, "Meh, it's just a 'beta'" I can guarantee sites like GmailSwap [gmailswap.com] has their business development staff weeping tears of joy; you can't buy marketing like that, but hordes of technorati are creaming their jeans for this email-cum-status-symbol.

  • Forgive any ignorance I display here, as I'm not one of the fortunate few who has gmail (yet).

    I've been trying to imagine why google would do such an un-google thing. Perhaps they're worried about coders going to next level, and coding up entire gmail readers--or incorporating gmail account readers into something like Thunderbird [mozilla.org]. Adding that word-identification script filter to the login process would certainly prevent something like that--but also has the side effect of blowing up the seemingly innocuous gmail email notifier.

    Which leads me to wonder how google's own system tray email notification program can still work. Obviously it's still possible, in theory, to do this same thing in spite of the word-identification script filter. Perhaps google will publish an API that 3rd party developers can use solely for the use of gmail notification abilities in their own programs.

    I can't believe (thought it's definitely possible) that their goal would be to blow up only the 3rd party email notification programs. It seems like 3rd party notification programs would serve to only promote the use of gmail. And, as far as I know, they gain no ad revenue directly from their gmail notification system tray icon.

    They actually publish an API for doing (limited) google searches in 3rd party programs, which seems like a more overt way to avoid ads and avoid google's revenue source. Maybe that'll be history soon, who knows? I hope this isn't an indication of their new corporate policy and philosophy.

    • by MilenCent (219397) <johnwh@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:50PM (#10098344) Homepage
      My guess:

      It has nothing to do with adsense: you have to open messages to receive ads, and notifiers don't do that.

      I think it's probably to block other people who aren't yet on our radar, such as spammers automating logins for the purposes of evil, or someone trying to create a shell program around Gmail that blocks ads.
    • by MrNonchalant (767683) on Saturday August 28 2004, @06:51PM (#10099475)
      About a week back I downloaded GMail Notifier the official alternative. Then I fired up Ethereal. There is indeed a backdoor protocol. Though from what I can tell from the HTTP GET string it's protected to high hell. GMail notifier sends an HTTP GET query to the GMail server, the GMail server sends back the number (and almost only the number) of messages. Here's the dump:

      GET /gmail?ui=pb&q=label%3A%5Ei%20label%3A%5Eu HTTP/1.1
      User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; GNotify 1.0.21.0)
      Host: gmail.google.com
      Cache-Control: no-cache
      Cookie: en_US; GV=fea7b8d648-b9be26d2425258708508713e52327ed1; GMAIL_AT=6d9cba730be1a490-fea7ca187f; SID=AV8H4FYfeDJ-4lwENnL9kzcyiSJshVSKK2xixnjpjWgHsf 5ZeIhRBn0aSXNXqg9mNrvBpyrfx0ImAGmONYgxv0w=; PREF=ID=446f57901cff551a:TM=1093681541:LM=10937355 79:TB=2:S=QbSoqBBCOK7nKj0f; S=gmail=NK86NtM1S-k:gmproxy=rYXDOT5E60U

      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Set-Cookie: SID=AfvmInwaGVRkESW3REmGuiyongiyNzyqguZePHuQUyJ9sf 5ZeIhRBn0aSXNXqg9mNtCkJwBg2BEl1DvtQ6bT250=;Domain= .google.com;Path=/;Expires=Tue, 26-Aug-2014 23:45:55 GMT
      Cache-control: no-cache
      Pragma: no-cache
      Content-Type: application/octet-stream
      Transfer-Encoding: chunked
      Server: GFE/1.3
      Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:45:55 GMT

      4

      0

      I however absolutely hate the color scheme involved with Notifier, so I will NOT be using it until they improve that. GTray (http://torrez.us/gtray), my app of choice, still works just fine as of about 10 minutes ago. If Google really does close it off at some point, I think we should petition them to open up a version like Google API with similar restrictions.
  • really? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:06PM (#10098020)
    I notice no word verification... I like the google gmail notifier it does do pop ups. :) plus you can choose "tell me again" to see the pop up again if you missed it.
  • Get a better account (Score:5, Interesting)

    by g-to-the-o-to-the-g (705721) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:07PM (#10098023) Homepage Journal
    I suggest either running your own email server, or getting a decent imap account from your isp. Although webmail services may be convenient at times, you have to come to grips with the fact thats its a webmail service, so you're not going to get all the bells and whistles. Gmail is neato, but I don't think it's good enough for the power user.
  • beta (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Metaldsa (162825) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:07PM (#10098024)
    This is still a free beta email service. I can't believe I am reading a complaint about a beta service. You are there to fix bugs and offer suggestions.

    "Will we be seeing controls on browsers that can view gmail next?"

    fuckin /. commentary...
  • Fair enough. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dthoma (593797) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:07PM (#10098028) Journal
    They have a right to do this. I like Google's services as much as the next person, but I think it's a bit silly to unanimously praise GMail. Google is a company like any other, and I hope this little incident reminds the Google fanboys of that. We need to be wary and responsible.
  • by Radioactive Zorm (803479) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:10PM (#10098064)
    "Google has now taken it one step further and created a word-identification script filter as part of the login process." In fact if you go there now you won't see this. This is part of Gmail's anti bruteforcing stuff. If you get a password wrong so many times it starts requiring you to enter a word to try and stop an automated bruteforcing script. GMAIL ISN'T BLOCKING YOUR 3RD PARTY MAIL NOTIFIER JUST YOU FOR BEING STUPID!
  • by enosys (705759) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:20PM (#10098145) Homepage
    Maybe they're worried about Pop Goes the GMail [neowin.net], which provides a POP3 interface to a Gmail account. This is a real threat to them because if you use it you don't see any of the ads.
  • Funny, I was just thinking of this a couple of hours ago...

    We all know Google has been deemed to be the best positioned company to compete with Microsoft. The big fear of course is that MS will use their desktop monopoly to blur the barrier between the offline and online worlds and make sure their offerings overtake Google in market share terms.

    Now, take a look at these videos (http://msdn.microsoft.com/Longhorn/productinfo/co nceptvid/default.aspx [microsoft.com]) and you'll see that Longhorn will have this standard pop-up notification API that can be used by applications to inform the user of events. It is used prominently in these demos to show email reception.

    Naturally, I would expect this to work with Exchange and possibly Hotmail (but what if Outlook/Outlook Express use it... See below), but not with Gmail.

    Why is this important? Because if Gmail takes over the Web mail market, which could very well happen by 2006 given their good feature set and experience with applications at this scale, users will become accustomed to this functionality. Google will fiercely market the notifier applet to their users and everyone will have it, and they won't care less when the Longhorn applet can't notify them about new messages in their Gmail. And considering how many people I know who only have a Web mail account, I think this would allow Google to prevail by meshing and extending their user experience right into their desktops.

    Then again, given that they're thinking of implementing POP access and that MS mail clients may as well use this feature, this may all be a moot point...

      • by r.jimenezz (737542) <rjimenezh@@@gmail...com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:15PM (#10098520)
        I guess you're looking to be modded Funny :) If you're not...

        Yeah, not only is the Google Office Suite better and more stable than MS Office; the GoogleOS is finally ready for prime time

        And this may as well be why Google actually represents more than a threat to Microsoft. It is not about the desktop operating system anymore; a new breed of software companies is out there using the Internet as their distribution channel. Google, Amazon, eBay, etc., are all software companies in disguise. Typically, you don't pay to use their software; advertisement and special services takes care of that. But still, you access their servers to use their software in order to get your information processed.

        As broadband becomes ubiquitous, we should expect more and more innovative uses of the Internet (note I said the Internet, not necessarily the Web...) As for MS, how much more can they really grow? New machines cannot sustain their level of growth forever, and the users will not migrate to their next version of Windows or Office suite just because; they are now finding themselves diverting towards new initiatives and into new markets where they actually have to (gasp!) compete, lest they lose relevance in the larger scheme.

        I don't see MS disappering anytime soon, but certainly it is not the good ol' times where they could just crush away their competition, and they are worried about that. Whether they have reason enough to be worried or not is up for debate, but just like with people, stress can be more harmful to companies that the actual situation they're stressing about.

        Most of these ideas have been said before many times, and that includes several Slashdotters. You can go look for the posts yourself.

  • What is this fud? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by broothal (186066) <christian@fabel.dk> on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:25PM (#10098182) Homepage Journal
    I don't really get this rant. First of all, there's no word identification filter in the login process. Second, if he doesn't like gmail notifier, don't use it. Thirdly, I highly doubt the changes are solely to disturb the third party tools. More likely, they're working on improvents (which shouldn't come as a surprise since it's still in beta).
  • Legitimate reasons? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mitchell Mebane (594797) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:27PM (#10098197) Homepage Journal
    Maybe there are legitimate reasons for doing this. If Google fears that GMail's 1GB storage space could be used as a warez haven, they may have good reason for locking out automated tools.
  • by cyberlotnet (182742) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:31PM (#10098223) Homepage Journal
    Gmail has not published a offical api yet to access there webmail.

    Right now these third party apps work by logging into the gmail account and pulling up the records, its just like you going to the webpage and logging in. This requires there system to access and cache every message in your inbox.

    Imaging what would happen to the /. servers if everyone tried to post at the exact same time, They would slow to a crawl..

    This is what they are trying to prevent, thousands of third party checkers slowing down there system. I would be willing to bet once they have there gmail API stablized they will publish something like they have for the google search API, allowing third party programs to PROPERLY check the system without using excess resources.
  • I heard... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PsiPsiStar (95676) on Saturday August 28 2004, @03:59PM (#10098411)
    Shouldn't I be free to use whatever third party software to check my email?

    If you don't like their policies, they'll refund your money.
  • by nwbvt (768631) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:07PM (#10098465)
    ...and not a bunch of FUD, here is a legitimate reason for blocking 3rd party notifiers. If everyone is free to develop their own apps, they could run into similar problems as sites serving rss feeds. As it is now, any damn fool can write themself an aggregator, and as a result many do not work as they are supposed to. Instead of only checking for changes every hour or so, some allow the user to check for updates every minute. As a result of that, the aggregators end up forming a DDOS attack on the server hosting the feed. If Google controls the notifiers for gmail, they can ensure that they do not suffer similar problems.
  • by gexen (123248) on Saturday August 28 2004, @04:39PM (#10098662)
    Where on earth did the author get the idea that:

    A) That there IS a word logon system currently implemented.

    B) That said word logon system was to block third party systems from interoperating with Google.

    Finally, why was this put on Slashdot when there is absolutely no link to any article whatsoever to backup the few sentences that make up this story? Since when is some guy's short four sentence oppinion the ENTIRE story, without giving any examples whatsoever?
  • by Moofie (22272) <lee.ringofsaturn@com> on Saturday August 28 2004, @10:45PM (#10100627) Homepage
    "Shouldn't I be free to use whatever third party software to check my email?"

    Sure. You're free to use any software you want. And Google is free to not allow you to use any software with their service that you don't want. And since you're not paying them anything, you don't have much leverage to get them to change their policy, do you?

    It's a free service. Take it or leave it.