Hell 2.0
No Tuesday post, I am filled with shame. My job decided, in a terrific reversal of protocol, to be a job literally all day, and I was busy. Alas, today looks to be just as filled with Lotus Notes-related busywork, so the blog goes on neglected. I hate Lotus Notes, it is messy, confusing, inefficient and outdated. As I slam my head against its astonishing load times and scattered installation files, grasping at some database or another like a primate trying to coax fire into existence, I sometimes wonder why clunky email clients still find such purchase in users’ online life.
I know, the Lotus platform, like the infinitely superior Outlook and Thunderbird and so on, does more than just gather email: these programs act as hubs for scheduling, instant messaging, databasing, and, now that I look closely, an entire goddamn office suite. Someone is making presentations and blogging by way of this monstrosity? Really?
I’ll admit that Lotus makes sharing and accessing databases easy, provided every single human being desiring to make use of said databases is set up with the platform and they’ve got some rich reading material on hand to occupy them selves during load times, but I’ll just as quickly suggest that there must be lighter and simpler alternatives.
I’m a child of web-based email, so downloading a program in order to access email strikes me as one too many steps, something that complicates the process without any worthwhile benefits. You need an email address to make use of any of these desktop clients as it is, so making the effort to configure and access one is the equivalent of taking several extra, bloated, non-portable steps to arrive back at the same place. I understand that Outlook, which I do admire, boasts of added security and the ability to easily synchronize calendars and contact information with other devices and services. Gmail matches this handily, with the added benefit of being accessible wherever one can get a hold of some internet, no downloads or configuration required. This is analogous to the difference between a sturdy, well appointed dirigible and an SR-17 Blackhawk. Sure, the former might fly, but you and I both know it can and will burst into flames at the slightest provocation. Yes, I am making Hindenberg jokes, because I am topical.
The thing of it is, I’m a sucker for data portability, and desktop clients like Lotus (even when they work) seem sunk indignantly into obsolescence at this point. I’m a firm believer that data portability is the future of web-based applications and services, which are themselves the future of computing. Reading about the heady dreams of the Data Portability Project, OpenID, cloud computing, the Google OS, and browser based storage, even Skype is exhilarating, as these are the technologies that are even now liberating users from their limitations and constructing, atom by atom, the Sci-Fi Future Wonderland that we get to live in. Email clients were innovative in the days when internet connections were scarce and fragile things, some spindly wires that reached out into a deep unknown to reel back your electronic-mails from the abyss, only to snap and coil limply into the dark. This is not the case anymore, though maybe this is a state of affairs familiar only to the internet-native generation.
As a side note, did you know that you can type in https://mail.google.com instead of the usual http:// modifier and you get an encrypted connection to your mail? Change your bookmarks now.
And also – wait a second. Does Skype really let you make calls to any land line in the world for 1.4 pence a minute, no matter what, without a contract?
And I just bought a 3-year plan with Rogers at ~$50 a month?
Fuck me.
BIT PART 
I think you are missing the point of the client! Outlook and lotus notes both also provide web based access to all of their information. So right there you have your easy data portability, not to mention that both allow for any information to be exported using the industry standard formats. The point of the client however is to enrich the user’s experience. Admittedly lotus note is a very slow bloated program, no argument there, however outlook is by far the better way of dealing with email.
The beauty of outlook is that the client and the web based version look identical, so you can access your email, calendar, contacts from anywhere without having to relearn where things are. The client however also possesses the ability to integrate with other software and migrate your data onto multiple platforms (ie sync all of that information to your ipod, blackberry or palm pilot) while keep you constantly up to date with friendly calendar reminds on your computer screen or notifications that you’ve got new mail. Integration into other software makes your life easier. A good example is the how Oulook integrates into office so you can email documents without having to load your browser, logon to a site, close the document, attach the document then finally send it. Instead just click the office button and click send. Talk about convenience. It doesn’t blow my mind at all that a good portion of the business world relies on this software…not on gmail.
Slam lotus notes all you want, but leave outlook alone!
July 24, 2008 at 12:46 am
Yes, I am missing the point of email clients! That is what I was trying to express: it’s not so much that I doubt the quality of Outlook, I see them as redundant. I could show you that every (completely valid) thing you attributed to Outlook is replicable in Gmail and other web mail suites, without the need to download anything. But the point I was trying to make is, clients don’t offer anything that compelling over web-based use, with the latter offering much more agility. I don’t see how they enrich users’ experience any more than comparable web services.
Your info might be portable in Outlook insofar as you can access it anywhere, but it still requires extra steps that I find needless with web technology. That takes up hard drive space and complicates the process: why use a separate program to access email? Sharing data and managing interactions can be done handily with many web clients, without the risk of program screw ups or crashes.
And the one-click file sending integration is misleading. Yes it’s only one click to create an email with file attached and send, but that’s not so much a feature of Outlook as MS Office as a whole, and it’s limited to the suite. With gmail I can one-click send files, images, notes, and links on the fly, and it’s integrated with every other google service: that’s greater flexibility with nary a download or install. Moreover, web-clients have total cross-platform capabilities. That’s a pretty big deal, even though I’ve no plans to go over to OSX or Linux, ever.
So to clarify, I don’t think Gmail has any compelling advantages over Outlook in itself, but it represents a simplification of process and an unmatchable finesse. I’d love to see Outlook make the jump to a fully web-based edition, with only a link and a login required. I’d consider dumping Gmail for that, but not a moment sooner.
July 25, 2008 at 12:34 am
That’s what i was saying. Outlook does offer the fully web based edition with only a link and a login required. In addition it offers you a client edition which you can use on your computer to enhance your experience.
The advantage to the client is integration into other software, reminders and notifications. Outlook when running will notify me of new emails, remind me of calendar appointments and generally run more seamlessly.
I don’t see the argument of program screw ups or crashes valid either. Websites are subject to the same issues as software running locally; it is all programmed by humans and thus has errors associated with it. I should note too that since I started using outlook in 2007 I have never had it crash on me once or lost a single file.
As for things outlook offers that Gmail doesn’t, as far as I know Gmail won’t remind me 5 minutes before I have a meeting, or let me know instantly that my new email has arrived without some type of software running on my computer. And that software is a small version of a client. If I have to be actively web browsing to get reminders I don’t find that useful, as it isn’t helpful when I am writing an essay or programming in matlab.
I also like that when searching in windows for documents my emails are seamlessly searched too. This way if the document I was looking for was attached to an email I have a handy copy right there, and it reminds me who sent it and when I received it.
As for the client taking up space on my hard drive, this is welcomed. I can either have my emails stored on servers and eventually burn through my available space, or I can keep fresh new emails on servers (as to be accesable anywhere) and archive old documents to my hard drive. Checking my pst file right now, if I had everything stored on a server I would be using 7gb of space, which in some cases might be pushing the bar.
So to sum it up, I can do everything Gmail can do with my web based version of outlook which is accusable via a web link, or I can install the client and enjoy seamless integration of email into my life.
Also 10 to 1 my outlook loads quicker than you can access Gmail.
Update: Oh i forgot to mention, outlook has cross platform integration as well, either via the web based version or the client which has both windows, and macintosh editions.
Update 2: Oh i can also read and reply to emails, update my calendar and generally work without the internet. Then the next time my client connects it updates my online profile witht hat same information.
July 25, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Outlook has a web-based version! That’s fabulous, and my argument is simply web-based > desktop client.
The crash comment was directed at programs in general.
The Gmail suite can send you reminders about anything you have scheduled, via text message, IM, and pop ups on your computer. Gmail has tabs to all other parts of the suite from your inbox, so it’s just as good as Outlook in that respect.
And I severely doubt that Outlook can load faster than >1 second, which is approximately how long my inbox takes to load when my link is clicked. In fact, I just tested it, and it took 9 seconds. 5 seconds the second time I opened it. Check your facts!
July 25, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I’m editing all your comments into one, quit spamming!
All google services have Google Gears integration which lets you do the offline work you described. Check your facts!
July 25, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I just opened oulook on my computer, less than a second. What software are you using to recieve those IM and popups? Could that be mini clients on your machine. Also now i have to pay for text messages to get reminders?
What i think this breaks down to is personal choice. And you may enjoy the web based version, but i think most people will prefer the comfort of a cleint, with the expandability of web based access.
Also i hate that web based software generally times out and all too often does loose a connection.
Update: Actually, i think what it boils down to, is gmail is perfect for personal use, but when it comes to business some of the features of outlook become more important, particularily for ease of use for the end user.
Update 2: “All google services have Google Gears integration which lets you do the offline work you described. Check your facts!”
So wait i have to install software on my computer now. That doesn’t seem client like at all. Where did your argument go?
Also i kinda like knowing that my email is not being scanned for marketing information and to provide my gmail screen with specified adds.
July 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Gears is a browser plugin. My argument stands, don’t be childish. 😛
I don’t think you’re reviewing the Gmail suite’s capabilities. Text messages are an option, not mandatory. Pop ups work in browser, not as clients, and IMs go to whatever IM service you already use: that’s integration.
And your email is not “scanned” and redirected for marketing purposes, ever. Read up on how Adsense works, no third party ever sees your content or searches.
Please stop spamming comments. 😛
July 25, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I think it’s childish of -you- to disregard my comments because I don’t have the time to carefully craft everything in one post.
I do strongly believe that gmail is a good email solution and perfect for personal use. I signed my grandparents up to use it (although the webpage was too busy and confusing for granddad so I had to set him out with outlook access to it, something he did understand) I also believe that browser plug-ins and using multiple programs to give you information one program could do is a waste of system resources, user time (configuring each plugin and service) and that for the average would find this process more complicated.
If we are arguing for the web based version of email, vs having a client it’s misleading to say gmail can offer you these services, because you have install or add the plugins to give you the full experience. It’s not a fair comparison because it doesn’t reflect the real world situation. Your argument is webmail vs client. So webmail should stand on its own two feet, without additional programs to provide the feature full experience.
On that basis a client offer a more feature full environment on a desktop than any web page can offer.
Also we overlooked the main reason people use outlook. Gmail doesn’t offer a comprehensive privacy policy, well certainly nothing that compares to corporate email. Until Google provides this, corporate email will stay where it should – in the corporation. Putting your data in someone elses control (and on someone elses disks), is a regulatory no-no for most major corporations particularly banks. Would you trust your branch if all of your personal data was floating around on gmail?
Ask any person who has both options available to them, that is any person who uses both outlook and a web based email client. Which one do you think they use more regularly to check their email? I know I have a gmail account, but I find it a hell of a lot easier just to have things popup in my outlook inbox, and get that friendly little blue box telling me I just got an email, or if you don’t leave now you’re going to miss that important meeting.
July 25, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Google’s privacy policy. See also the https option I mentioned in my post. It is comprehensive.
From said post: “…the infinitely superior Outlook and Thunderbird and so on, does more than just gather email: these programs act as hubs for scheduling, instant messaging, databasing…”
We are in agreement on that point. But the two suites have the same capabilities, including integration and notification.
Last point: you’re the only person I know who uses Outlook, so your test doesn’t work out in this context. I can’t find any compelling statistics on the breakdown between web-based and client use, but in my experience clients have been treated as superfluous by most users, hence the inspiration for my analysis.
July 25, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Pingback: Out and About « BIT PART