Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Communications Facebook Google Social Networks Technology

Facebook Inbox Throws Blow At Google... No Flinch? 207

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the there-can-be-only-two dept.
CWmike writes "Facebook's new messaging system may not be a Gmail killer, but it's definitely another blow in the growing battle between two Internet bigwigs. Facebook took the wraps off what it's calling a modern messaging system on Monday. The new system is designed to handle the convergence of different kinds of messages — Facebook messages, IMs, SMS and e-mail — and bring them together under a single social umbrella. The system also allows users to have a facebook.com email address, though it will work with other e-mail systems like Gmail and Yahoo. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is adamant that it's not intended to replace e-mail, but industry analysts say the new system will almost certainly draw some users away from Yahoo mail and Google's Gmail. Meanwhile, Google CEO Eric Schmidt told Computerworld that he's not worried at all about Facebook's new 'Social Inbox.' 'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Inbox Throws Blow At Google... No Flinch?

Comments Filter:
  • Uh huh ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:53PM (#34247566)

    'More competition is always good because it makes the market larger,' Schmidt said, charging that journalists were hyping the rivalry: 'As a group, you all are focused on the competition rather than the market getting larger. It brings more people in. We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.'

    Upon returning to his office after the press conference, Mr. Schmidt was heard to say, "I'm gonna fuckin' KILL Facebook!"

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @04:56PM (#34247616)

      More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

      • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:00PM (#34247696)

        More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

        AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.

        • More people shifting from open federated protocols to the closed world of Facebook is a bad thing. I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen.

          AOL had a shot at this and lost it. People are fickle and the 'latest greatest' trends will turn Facebook into the next MySpace within a few more years. What will replace Facebook? That is the billion dollar question.

          Well, if the answer to that question (and I agree, it's a legitimate question) happens to be "nothing", well, I'm afraid I won't be losing much sleep over it.

        • by hedwards (940851)
          I wouldn't say that it's inevitable, but the odds are really long on Facebook still being relevant 10 years from now. It could happen, but given the lack of competence exhibited by Facebook's managers, I would be surprised if it was still relevant in 5.
          • by SETIGuy (33768) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @06:25PM (#34248932) Homepage
            The lack of competence goes all the way to the top. Facebook is coasting on inertia at this point and surviving on the lack of a decent competitor. As far as I can tell the current business model is based upon taking away the features users like and adding ones they don't want. And somehow some businesses still advertise there.
            • The lack of competence goes all the way to the top. Facebook is coasting on inertia at this point and surviving on the lack of a decent competitor. As far as I can tell the current business model is based upon taking away the features users like and adding ones they don't want. And somehow some businesses still advertise there.

              Well, if that's true (and I've never been a Facebook user, so I'll take your word for it) it sounds like Facebook is ripe for the plucking. Other posters were wondering if Facebook would still be relevant five or ten years from now. I think somebody may steal Zuckerbert's thunder well before then: things happen fast in social-network time.

    • by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:17PM (#34247984) Homepage Journal

      Or he calmly went back to his near-utopian Google campus and said, "I feel bad for Facebook. They have no idea what we have up our sleeve." And then he spent the rest of the day playing ping pong.

  • I already have 90% of the same functionality through Google voice, so I don't expect Google will do much of anything.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      If anything, this makes me want to disable my facebark as there is too much feature creep and too much Creepyberg. The core functionality has been lost underneath a shitstorm of new features that make me scramble for the options settings to turn the fuckerbergs off. WTF. Why not do the core functionality and let ME decide if I want to use the new GoogleWave... er, facebook wave? Is that too much to ask? Apparently so.

      The only spam I ever get on my one clean gmail account IS from a facebook invite, and

      • by lmnfrs (829146)

        Use at your own risk, Saddos!

        No kidding. The only reason I have an account there is that I fell for an old trick, and didn't look at the actual href of the link I clicked.

  • These two are going to fight over users, or rather users' personal data? There's enough users and marketing companies to go around. Both of them will prosper by selling out their users. This world is big enough for both of them.
    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:19PM (#34248010) Homepage Journal

      Correction.

      One company just directs ads to you. They serve the ads directly and they don't hand over your private data.

      The other company routinely changes privacy policies every couple months so you don't know they're exposing and selling your data after you repeatedly told them you don't want them doing that.

      • Yeah I'd rather have a @gmail.com and actually TELL that to someone than to make a @facebook.com and tell that to someone.

        I admit I have a facebook account (along with apparently all the rest of the world) but I don't actually brag about it.

        It just isn't professional. Neither is @yahoo.com, @hotmail.com and certainly not @aol.com. @gmail.com is semi-professional yet I do have my own domains which I would put on a business card.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:02PM (#34247748)

    You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?

    I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.

    Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.

    What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:09PM (#34247834)

      You know, the kind where the content was not owned and searched by a multinational corporation?

      I mean it as a serious question, not rhetorical. Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies? We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time. Until very recently, it was never true that a huge fraction of it was all going through facebook or google.

      Why on earth would people give that up? I can't see what benefit they are getting. As far as I can tell, all modes allowed by something like gmail or facebook can be accomplished without the corporate overlords in the picture. There is email, non-corporate IM, and so forth.

      What am I missing? I seem perfectly able to communicate with all my friends online both in real time and non-real time without using those things, so it can't be "you will be isolated!!11!one!"

      I don't have an answer, other than the fact that these services are "free" and whatever downsides there are to these technologies, most people seem blissfully unaware of them. I'm on your side though: I've run my own mail server since before the Internet went public (I ran a decent BBS at one point, and was a hub for a number of mail networks.) When I first got online with the Internet, my first thought was to do the same for my own mail. I saw (and still) see no reason to let my mail pass through anyone else's servers if I don't have to. I wouldn't want my snail mail pawed over by a corporation looking to sell "targeted" junk mail either.

      • by hedwards (940851)
        That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.
        • That's not possible. Email that only goes through your server is generally referred to as PM. In order to get anywhere with email it has to go through any number of other servers.

          Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server (I don't use my ISP's mail services in either direction.)

          Now, my hosting service allows me to set their MX records to point directly to my server: incoming mail doesn't ever get stored on their server. The remote host does a domain lookup, connects to the host company's server and gets the MX record, which points directly to my server and connects to it. It also means that I don't have to poll anyone's server fo

          • by tukang (1209392)

            Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server

            Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.

            • Depends. With outgoing mail, my server attempts to connect directly to the target mail server

              Unless you have a direct physical connection to the target mail server, your mail will almost certainly go through a number of other servers. This is true for any internet traffic, so if you're really concerned about your privacy you should encrypt your email, in which case you can keep on using webmail.

              It will go through a number of routers, certainly. But that's not the same thing as saying it will be stored on a number of servers.

          • I think one of the things people on /. tend to miss is that 99% of the population has no idea what you are talking about. I encourage people who know the ins and out of the internet to do what you are saying, but for anyone after that the question is, who do you trust?

            People can choose along a continuum of size. You can be really personal, and have the whiz kid down the street set up your server, but then he might be really interested to see the love notes you send to your wife, who he happens to have a cru

    • by fishexe (168879) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:26PM (#34248130) Homepage

      We've had email since around 1720. OK, maybe more like 1970-1, but anyway still a really long time.

      Yeah, 1720 was when IP over Avian Carriers was invented, though it took that one 270 years of use to even get put into a written standard.

    • Why on earth would people give that up?

      Because the were told to and they are stupid enough to believe it. Case closed.

    • by sgage (109086)

      No kidding. My ISP, with whom I've been doing business for 15 years, decided without any input from customers to outsource their email to gmail. My email address is the same as ever, but it's done through gmail. I sent a complaint, never got an answer.

      I don't have a great feeling about Google, but I have a very bad feeling about Facebook. I actually made an account just to see what it was all about, and after a couple of weeks pulled the plug - just too busy, and creepy. I have an actual life, and feel no n

      • And that's why having your own domain is important. You could simply switch providers without changing your address.

    • by SETIGuy (33768) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @06:39PM (#34249096) Homepage

      Why are SO many people willing to have all their communication logged and data-mined by for-profit companies?

      For the features, of course. Grepping through 7GB of email is slower than hell. I have yet to find a mail client that will import and index that much mail without crashing. Even if one exists it will be damn slow when searching. It also won't be very useful from my phone for maintaining a merged email/phone/postal address book. That PC based client also won't store SMS texts with included images. Or translate my voicemails into text emails.

      There's certainly a market for an email system that does all that without storing data non-locally. Nobody has developed it yet, and it won't gain wide acceptance unless it is marketed by Microsoft. And there you're back to having trust issues again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I want a single inbox that is accessible from all of the half dozen devices that I use, and completely up-to-date at any given point regardless of which device is used. I don't see any other choice but the "cloud" here.

  • by RocketRabbit (830691) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:07PM (#34247800)

    Google has always done a really, really good job at keeping spam out of my actual inbox. I have had a gmail account for an awfully long time, and the amount of spam that has made it into my inbox is miniscule.

    Facebook, on the other hand, makes it a point to spam you with as much crap as possible. What use will a facebook.com mail account be when it is just choked with messages about virtual cows, virtual gifts, virtual sit-ins against and / or for just about everything, etc.

    Google is a notorious marketer, but I don't fear them in the same way that I fear facebook. Google promises not to use the information they collect to personally identify you. Facebook already has your personal identification. What do you think that little prick Zuckerberg is going to do with it?

    Let's ask Zuck himself:

    SLASHDOT: so have you decided what you are going to do about the users?
    ZUCK: yea i'm going to fuck them
    ZUCK: probably in the ear
    ZUCK: yea so if you ever need info about anyone at internets
    ZUCK: just ask
    ZUCK: i have over 400000000 emails, pictures, addresses, sns
    FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one?
    ZUCK: people just submitted it
    ZUCK: i don't know why
    ZUCK: they "trust me"
    ZUCK: dumb fucks

    • by Stregano (1285764)
      I agree. These are 2 different beasts. One got money through selling themselves out to spam, and one made money by, uh, selling themselves out and letting spam all over their search engine.

      I guess the only difference is that Google is not passing my information around to their spam buddies, which I appreciate. With Google, it is much easier to keep my information private. Sure, there are profile settings within Facebook, but I have no clue what zuckerberg has in store for my personal information itse
      • by RocketRabbit (830691) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:28PM (#34248178)

        Well, the point is that Zuck himself has admitted that he thinks I am a dumb fuck for trusting him. He has gone on the record and said that he doesn't believe in privacy on the internet anyway.

        He considers me a dumb fuck for even getting a facebook account in the first place, for giving him that information. Unfortunately like many people here, I was sort of roped into it by my family. They think it's awfully convenient and just think I'm a tool for suggesting that facebook might not be ultimately a good thing for the world. "Oh but I can keep up with all the people I never bothered to keep up with." Whoopee, but you can see the attraction there for some folks.

        Hell, I know one girl who accepts friend requests from anybody, and posts a lot of suggestive photos of herself. She thinks it's all in fun, but I think she should be *very* afraid of that sort of interaction with thousands of random strangers.

        My other buddy did facebook correctly. He used part of his real last name for his first name, made up a fictional last name, and posts nothing.

        • Hasn't Eric Schmidt done the same at Google?
    • by zmollusc (763634)

      Yipe! With all that money, he can't hire PR staff to deal with interviews like this?

    • by Kozz (7764)

      FRIEND: what!? how'd you manage that one? ZUCK: people just submitted it ZUCK: i don't know why ZUCK: they "trust me" ZUCK: dumb fucks

      Honestly, is this real, or satire? I can't tell, because 1) I swear I'd read it before, and 2) I wouldn't put it past him.

  • Facebook (Score:3, Insightful)

    by falldeaf (968657) <falldeaf@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:08PM (#34247814) Homepage
    I'm not facebook's biggest fan... I'm forced to use it more and more because of friends and family but if someone truly did consolidate IM, email, SMS, calling, voicemail and whatever else in a meaningful, easy to access way I'd be completely on board. Google is getting close but I still have to have two or three tabs open and some of it feels very tacked on. IM'ing in gmail for instance. I'd love to get a notification for any of them through the same system and a simple way to answer all of them back, too!
    • I've already consolidated all of this .. into email or IM onto my phone! Whenever I get any sort of message on several platforms, I get sent an email and both my desktop client and phone suck it all done so I can read it. The emails contain links so I can reply if it was on a message board somewhere.

      That includes voicemail.....Vonage has had voicemail transcription for years. I can read it or listen to it, and then call that person back if I choose to.

      So ..what's the problem that facebook is trying t
      • by falldeaf (968657)
        No, you get notified for most of your services on your phone. I'm talking about a single unified interface for any of these services that can be answered through the same interface, both on a phone and desktop! The same way the pigeon IM client seamlessly consolidates multiple different IM protocols. Once the different protocols are set up, the user doesn't have to care which IM service they just got messaged from. Why not consolidate email, SMS, voice message and IM the same way?
        • Are sure you actually want this? The thing is, the isolation of these services serves a useful purpose. They all carry their own social context and rules.

          Email - probably not urgent, but get back to me in 24 - 48 hours please. Might have useful attachments, etc, handy for archiving stuff

          IM - probably not urgent but handy if you can respond in real time for a quick chat

          SMS - short and sweet, could be urgent or time sensitive, check it out as soon as you can, a one word response will quite possibly do. D

          • by falldeaf (968657)
            That's actually a really good point. For the most part I follow those social rules. However, if the communication format changes you can change the social rules. You don't have to change everyone's behavior just your own. For instance, if I IM some of my contacts they respond when it's convenient and I just accept that and some others IM me back almost immediately 90% of the time or at least say hold on I'm busy I'll get back to you. I played the game second life for a short time and I remember there was th
          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            Wow, you're slow at answering your email! (Don't get me wrong, I have many many years of old email..)

    • by sgage (109086)

      You are not forced to use Facebook at all.

      • by falldeaf (968657)
        I was using it as an expression, no there's no one standing next to me and holding a gun to my head, you're right. But just like my cell phone, facebook brings good and bad things into my life. So I was lamenting the bad parts in my post. Way to be too literal. :)
  • We are all served by having everybody in the world get online.

    FTFY: We are all served more ads by Google by having everybody in the world get online.

  • Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook?
    I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?

    • Seeing that this community has a lot of security conscious folk who is actually using Facebook? I'm not. But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?

      Not me. My idea of a "social network" is emailing, texting and phone calling my circle of friends and acquaintances.

    • I use it. I move from project to project and meet new people along the way. We used to use LinkedIn but Facebook just sort of won, probably because people have fun posting funny stories.

      I've found work that was as have a number of my colleagues. I've had a few good laughs along the way, too.

    • by rwa2 (4391) *

      irc on our own private server with ircstats [humdi.net].

      I'm in favor of this Facebook email thing. gmail / buzz always had more interesting users, and this will keep a lot of the chaff away from the wheat :-P

      Also, true story: my grandmother calls me at a random airport to notify me that I might be on the same flight as my father's cousin. Haven't had a social networking thingie deliver that kind of notification yet.

    • by istartedi (132515)

      I'm not using it, but it has nothing to do with privacy. It has more to do with not wanting to see half my highschool class drunk and metamorphosed into overweight soccermoms/cubejocks.

      If I wanted to see that, I'd have gone to the 10 and 20 year reunions.

      Oh, and Farmville. 'nuff said. FaceBook just has too much of an AOL, least common denominator feel to it. The privacy issue is just another thing that doesn't even make it onto the list. Before there can be a privacy issue with something, you actually h

    • by jshackney (99735)

      But if you aren't and you still do the "social networking" thing, what are you using?

      My telephone. It's weird and antiquated, but it works fabulously.

      For the record, I dumped Facebook about a month ago. Cold turkey. I basically figured out that:

      1. People love drama.
      2. I am apparently supposed to give a damn about where [you] ate last night.
      3. and everyone loves a voyeur.

      I had hidden so many people that I realized Facebook was worse than real life. Real life is like the school teacher who can send her kids home every night to their parents. Facebook is like being stuck in kindergarten 24/7.

  • This appears to be a re-hash of Google Wave, which the big G already abandoned.

    • Except far fewer features than Google Wave, it is a closed service, and Facebook will own all your private data. But otherwise it is just the same.

    • Google should care....because of the huge boost this gives to Microsoft Office Online. Millions of users...instantly.
    • This isn't Wave, this is the Wave killer!

  • The market will grow but you need an e-mail to sign up at Facebook, and as such, some Facebook users will migrate from Gmail to Facebook mail. Therefore, the market is growing but Facebook will steal more than the growth that Eric is referring to.
  • Have we not yet reached a point where everyone that wants and is infrastructurally able to have access to e-mail, has got it? Are there a bunch of people that Google hasn't reached yet? Better start another GMail invite campaign, I guess.
    • by hedwards (940851)
      The reason for the invites was a combination of building a buzz and not wanting to swamp the infrastructure before it had fully stabilized. The only reason to start another invite campaign would be to have people spamming their friends. Probably not the sort of buzz that Google wants or needs.
  • I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.

    I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.

    Are they enabling it on a per-user basis and skipping those of us who log into facebook less often than once in an hour?

    Ah, tech reporters, will they ever tire of blowing up nonsense into "world-shaking" pseudo-news. This one is worse than Segway and iStuff combined.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      It's probably a limited roll out. Often times they do it in waves so that they can avoid hosing a lot of people if there's something which made it through the QA which shouldn't have. It's also a lot easier on the infrastructure.
      • by siddesu (698447)

        That was not what the news and announcements implied though. That shows how much reason is there to trust Facebook with your email.

        / Google too.

    • by fishexe (168879)

      I use facebook occasionally, and since Monday I've been looking for something that even remotely resembles a revolutionary and useful messaging interface.

      I just can't find it, the messaging system I see is the same useless shit as it always was.

      To be fair, the "same useless shit" in facebook is far superior to the messaging system in Slashdot, which consists of looking up your friend's recent posts list, clicking one at random, then making an off-topic public reply.

  • Several problems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:21PM (#34248066)
    First, I have all kinds of convergence on GMail and frankly, don't care for it. In fact I rarely use the web client. I'm a throwback geek, what can I say. I do use the texting feature when I can't text from area with no coverage.

    The big problem Facebook has right now is credibility. Given the myriad of accounts that are hijacked daily, the privacy issues, I can think of no other company I want my data to be on less than Facebook. Except maybe Microsoft but I like piling on Microsoft. :)

    From what I can tell, it would take years for FB to get spam under control because they don't even have it under control on their site now. One reason I'm using GMail is because no other online email app rejects spam better.

    Facebook can't rely on pretty colors and whirly thingies. They need to get their act together before branching out. Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.
    • by fishexe (168879)

      Yes, Microsoft was able to branch out by spreading mediocrity but the world was a lot less tech savvy then.

      Also, they held the desktop OS monopoly back then too. Facebook doesn't exactly have a social networking monopoly, although they are better poised to achieve one than any other company. I think of it like the situation Microsoft was in back in 1982.

  • I am confident that everyone will switch over in droves to ensure the security of their online communications. No doubt FB offers only the top most level of security with their email. Guaranteeing that they will never harvest data from it or sell/divulge your most intimate of secrets.
    • by mlts (1038732) *

      I can see this... but all parties would have to have PGP Desktop, or a similar utility to encrypt/decrypt messages, as well as a pre-established WOT.

      This comes to mind something... Perhaps combine Facebook and Hushmail? Result, every object (status update, message) is encrypted with its own key, and the key be decryptable by users, groups of users, or everyone. This way, a break in, or a goof in the backend application wouldn't reveal any information that has not been configured to reveal unless the key

  • A solution I don't want to a problem I don't have from a company I don't trust. Great.
  • Google? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rudy_wayne (414635) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:35PM (#34248312)

    Facebook's new messaging system may not be a Gmail killer

    Here's an interesting graphic that surprised me. U.S. Internet traffic to Web-based email clients [zdnet.com]

    #1 Yahoo - 72.8 million

    #2 Hotmail - 48.5 million

    #3 GMail - 25.1 million

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pnuema (523776)
      You forget - Yahoo is the default email address for anyone who uses AT&T (formerly Southwestern Bell) as an ISP. No one else gets that kind of subscriber boost.
    • I've heard of all the others but this one puzzles me.

    • A more interesting chart would be the growth rates for these three.

  • by DdJ (10790) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:42PM (#34248424) Homepage Journal

    If I understand the presentation I saw, one of the things this Facebook tool will have going for it is, it'll be an IMAP client. You can punch in the details of your mail server, and use it as webmail for that service. Like, embed SquirrelMail in Facebook.

    If Facebook can convince users to punch in the details for GMail's IMAP server, reading their GMail mail via Facebook instead of the GMail web interface, then Google runs the mail infrastructure, but Facebook gets the ad impressions. Remember, if you access GMail via IMAP, you see no ads at all. (I use GMail via IMAP, from several desktop and handheld IMAP clients.) If that started to happen in any volume, I bet Google would wake up and notice.

    • by ADRA (37398)

      Until Google decides to block Facebook IMAP harvesters for the same reason they did with the address book sync squabble. If facebook integrates mail from Google/others, why aren't facebook messaging services (send and receive) available from external sources?

      Google doesn't JUST make money off the presentation of ads in their web interface.
      1. They scrape the data to better utilize advertising to you when you're logged into other Google services
      2. The analysis of your email/etc could allow for better heuristi

    • by takowl (905807)

      Well, it would be no great leap for Google to add that feature themselves. They've been able to act as a POP client for some time now, sucking in e-mails from the accounts people have with their ISPs, mainly.

      And I like GMail's interface. Facebook would be doing pretty well to beat Google there.

  • by unity100 (970058) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:46PM (#34248478) Homepage Journal
    hahahahahaha.

    sorry, no dice. zuck is trustworthy and reliable for me as much as ... well, brutus maybe ...
  • by Is0m0rph (819726) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @05:55PM (#34248600)
    It's called an Android phone.
    • Ie, gmail, sms, work mail and IM all in one thread?

      This offers that, in one sense. I think @facebook.com will fail, but it's not the same as your iPhone/Android... now if Google released a (limited) wave client that was a mobile app... :-)

  • by Mysticalfruit (533341) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @06:27PM (#34248960) Journal
    Realize who this service is aimed at... When these people joined facebook they gladly handed over passwords for all their email accounts and instant messaging services. Now all this stuff is going to be done in house.

    At this point, if you've used facebook and you haven't been completely neurotic about what you're exposing, they've got a very good handle on who you are, who your friends are, what's in your inbox and what's in your friends inbox.

    Those of us, who want to keep our privacy won't use this service. That other group of people have already lost their privacy, they just haven't realized it yet.
  • my blackberry already merges my SMS, email, facebook and IM messages.
  • It's natural that Google wouldn't flinch. On the contrary, they were probably quite courteous.

    "Thanks, Facebook, but we have plenty of blow already!"

  • Way I look at it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rikkards (98006) on Tuesday November 16, 2010 @10:15PM (#34250922) Journal

    When I submit my cv for a job do I really want my email address to say @facebook.com?

    Didn't think so.

    • by Chrisq (894406) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @05:13AM (#34252336)

      When I submit my cv for a job do I really want my email address to say @facebook.com?

      Didn't think so.

      Even worse, when they look up your profile and see all the "pictures of you" taken by friends at that party you'd rather forget. It happened to me, its really embarrassing. How was I to know that going to the local tea party wasn't going to involve a nice cup of Earl Gray, buttered scones and Jam.

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose

Working...