Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Show HN: Gmelius – No Ads and Better User Interface for Gmail (gmelius.com)
160 points by xpressyoo 1179 days ago | hide | past | web | 112 comments | favorite



TL;DR Selling a product which basically remove ads from another service does not sit well with me, should be two separates products.

I REALLY hate ads on web-based gmail client, but I suppose they are a necessary evil.

The an ads-removing feature send the wrong message.

I may buy (or donate for) a gmail-client-enhancer. I may buy (or donate for) an ad-remover plugin (well, I already use ABP and ghostery, and donated for the former) But I wouldn't give money for a gmail-specific ad-remover, that doesn't feel right (even if I am using ABP, maybe the 'specific' part?)

I may be wrong, but distributing it at two separate plug-ins may be better. Removing the "ad-removing" part would be the easiest way, because interested people almost all already have ad-blocker.

Even if you chose to let it in, not making it a major marketing point would be smarter. just let it there as an option (activated by default or not, I don't know).

PS: Attachment icons would be real nice, though, I love that feature.

PS2: Yes, I know, using ABP and not wanting to pay for that app because of this feature sounds like hypocrisy, in fact it is, but that's how I thought about it (I have build-in hypocrisy), and I may not be the only one.


You can use Gmail without ads if you pay USD 50/year/user for Google Apps for Business:

https://support.google.com/a/answer/60758?hl=en


Unfortunately those will come at the price that your Google account works slight differently (in regards to G+, YouTube, Maps, GTalk, Docs, ...). It's more than just removing ads. Unfortunately. I was very close to moving my personal Gmail Apps for Business with my domain but decided against because of all the side effects. I really wish Google would offer a clean "Pay for your personal Google account". Just no ads anywhere. That's all.


I did the same evaluation with the same conclusion a while back too. How much do they make per year on the ads I see? Why not let me bid for my own eyes? They can't come out worse. Somewhere in the serving of the ads, they check my profile to see what kind of ads to use for me, why not let me purchase a "blank" ad across swaths of my own activity?


Agreed. I have no end of trouble with the couple business GApps domains I admin, I'd happily pay for an ad free personal account.


I think the adoption of something like this would be pretty low, the return on which may not even cover the outlay on marketing to make it known that a pay-for-no-ads option exists.

I don't disagree with those of you who were a bit surprised to find this application blocks all ads indiscriminately. I also find Google's ads to be the least intrusive on the block. One need only login to Yahoo! Mail to realize how unobtrusive Google's ads are.


Microsoft thinks it's worth $20 for an Ad-free Outlook.com.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/ad-free-outlook


You can still continue to use your private Google account for Google+ etc.

A major issue would be the migration of your data from your private Google account to a Google Apps account. There is no direct migration path, you basically have to download all your data and upload it again. If you have a high number of mails, it might take weeks since download/upload are rate-limited.


without ads* I suppose. (and thanks for the link)


Yep, I've just corrected the typo …


> "Removing the "ad-removing" part would be the easiest way, because interested people almost all already have ad-blocker."

Interested parties will probably already be using free software to remove ads across the web, but you have a problem with this free software that removes ads only in gmail and provides a ton of other neat features? Adblock asks for donations too -- https://adblockplus.org/en/contribute.


With ad-block, I can allow non-invasive ads to reach me, while blocking others (with sound, flash, some ads provider). This is a useful service, and I can donate for it, because it doesn't feel wrong.

But why hidding /removing the ads in gmail feel wrong? Because they are not too visible. The only bad/intrusive part of gmail ads is the mail parsing to select which ad will be shown. I have no proof, but I strongly suspect this will be done even if I hide them, so nothing to win there.


Justify it however you want, it's all wrong. These services are provided free of charge in exchange for displaying ads. Don't like the ads? Don't use the service.


That's like saying "don't skip ads on free-to-air TV, don't like ads? Don't watch free to air TV".

In regards to what we are giving in exchange for the free service, there's all sorts of tracking activity, contact and content mining, and general Google account-related user information that we share with Google in order to feed Google's database.

Google aims to feed its database to improve its products and make its products more attractive to partners. Ads in Gmail are only part of the story of how Google gets rich from your stream of personal data. A few ads shown on the Gmail interface is not how Google is making its billions.


I believe the ad-hiding feature in this app is optional as well, so you can have it let ads through, to be managed by ABP as you like.


>> PS: Attachment icons would be real nice, though, I love that feature.

IIRC, there is an option in gmelius to opt for a GMail style of MS-style icon for attachments.


I have no problem with people trying to defend themselves. And Google can obviously block such people if they want.


I use a native app for my gmail so I'm not the target (although I'd certainly be interested if I were using the online interface), but here's some feedback on your homepage:

-Make your headline a different color other than white, because it's very hard to see with that background image.

-It took me scrolling "below the fold" to find out what it is this product does. I'd change your headline to something more concrete, like "Gmail, the way you want it" while also finding a way to move up some of the product-specific content higher up on the page.

-You also have way too much text and the two paragraphs that start with "Gmelius, pronounced 'Gmail'-'jus'..." seem unnecessarily long and distract me from finding out more about your project. I actually read that and just skipped past that whole block of text and later realized I had also overlooked your donation box.

-There's also too much text explaining the features, making those screenshots look tiny in comparison. I think you could just get rid of the descriptive text and keep the feature titles, like "Restore the old compose window" and "Experience Gmail without ads" without losing any of the message.

-Minor point: That red download box should explicitly tell me it's not supported for Safari, if you're detecting my browser. Right now it says "Free Download for Safari" in bold text with "Browser not supported" in a lighter typeface underneath. Like I said, minor, but I found it a bit confusing.

Hope that helps!


Thanks a lot for the feedback kyro! Your idea of headline sounds better indeed :) Regarding the amount of text, you have a point... Will try to prioritize pictures and key features. Thanks again. Best.


Also, a lot of the wording in the feature paragraphs is strange. I'm not sure if English is your second language or if you're just trying too hard to explain things. If it's the latter, just keep it simple. For example - "In Gmail, labels are placed at the very left of emails subjects. This has for main consequence to decrease the visibility of the content of your emails." The second sentence there reads like an output from Google Translate.


@kyro:

Out of curiosity, which native app do you use for Gmail?

I am asking because I have not found a satisfying native app for Gmail so far. Standard IMAP clients like Apple Mail and Thunderbird are usually in a constant struggle to update all the folders (labels) and new mail outside the inbox might show up with major delays in comparison to Gmail on the web (or in a browser-like client).


I've been using Sparrow for over a year now. It seems like they've stopped releasing updates, and lots of users (from what I'm reading on the App Store) are complaining of stability issues, but everything's fine here.


They were acquihired by Google. AirMail is a decent alternative though I find it a lot less stable than Sparrow, but use it because of the number of glaring problems Sparrow has that will never be fixed at this point. In the end I find AirMail a tad more usable.


+1 for AirMail. Its developer is moving quickly to get issues resolved.


How do such apps avoid to run into the usual Gmai-related IMAP issues? Is there an API for Gmail access?


Issues such as? I don't know as far as I know they just use IMAP. I do notice the occasional syncing issues though.


Google's implementation of IMAP is very weird. You may want to read this http://tidbits.com/article/14219


Apple Mail and Thunderbird at least fail at keeping all folders (labels) up-to-date all the time. It usually works for the inbox but folders only get updated when you access them.


And – as a current example – Apple Mail (Mavericks) still show already read mails from yesterday as unread in the 'unread mail' smart folder. 'Synchronize' does not help.


Kind of ironic that a page that offers to hide adsense on gmail uses adsense on its own site to support itself. It's almost as if they knew gmail couldn't exist without adsense and yet still offer their users to hide those ads while cashing on adsense themselves. Maybe the right word is shameless, not ironic.


Ironic or shameless or whatever, this goes against Adsense TOS: you cannot promote a service of theirs (here: Gmail) and explain how to hack that service.

I was recently "kindly" asked by Google(had 48 hours to comply) to remove Adsense from a innocuous post on my blog because said post was just a couple lines explaining how I used some online service to download a video from Youtube (which, apparently, hurts their TOS and feelings)


I don't know if you can compare this to what you did.

This seems more like a client side hiding and moving things around with CSS/javascript.


And his just like client side moving things from the cache directory to the download directory...


I don't see the irony.

If I'm Florian Bersier, the creator, and I believe that it's ultimately the users choice to manipulate the the UI--up to and including removing ads--then I can still use those same ads on my site without contradiction as long as I also believe that users have the right to remove those ads as well.

The contradiction, as I see it, would come if he made somehow it impossible for users to remove ads on his site while presenting a product that removes those same ads.


Cool, I'm gonna write an extension that removes ads from your page, and encourage people to use it when using your site...

I don't know why people do this... Google provides Gmail and other services free of charge because of Adsense, don't ruin that by facilitating the removal of their ads...

Here's a great trade off, don't want to see ads in your email? Don't use Gmail.

This is why we can't have nice things.


Here's a great trade off, don't want to see ads in your email? Don't use Gmail.

Out of curiosity, where do you draw the line? Am I also required to read each ad? Purchase something from x% of advertisers?

I've been a Gmail user since it was in very early beta and I don't think I have ever read a single ad on the site. They're there - I apparently immorally trained myself to ignore them though.


Nobody says you have to read or click them... There's a huge difference in ad types... Branding alone is worth a lot... You think McDonalds tells ABC that they have to guarantee a set amount of people to come into their stores after an ad of theirs airs on their channels? No. Just viewing the ad is very beneficial... Same thing with advertising on the internet, you don't have to click every ad, or even read it... Some ads pay just for being in the viewing area of the user.


@KillSwitch, "active" ad-avoiders use ad-blockers and "passive" ad-avoiders ignore them, leading to the same output, i.e. no revenue (CPC, 2/3 of all online advertising compensation methods, and growing). Now let's take the case of Gmail, Gmelius gives the possibility to its users to hide ads but does NOT block the parsing of messages by Google and so the gathering of information used by Adsense to propose "customized ads" on other domains. Now, you don't seem to take into account the fact that this overflow of ads we have to face (more and more) on a daily basis actually encourages people to become active or passive ad-avoiders, decreasing then the income generated by ads. I clearly think this kind of business model is not viable over the long-run...


You might think you are ignoring them. But I'm sure, every once in a while, you notice them. Add that a up over billions of impressions and it starts making sense.


Not sure ad-avoiders should be always seen as content-killers. I think this is a bit more complex than that. A good read: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/10/is-ad...


@KillSwitch, "active" ad-avoiders use ad-blockers and "passive" ad-avoiders ignore them, leading to the same output, i.e. no revenue (CPC, 2/3 of all online advertising compensation methods, and growing). Now let's take the case of Gmail, Gmelius gives the possibility to its users to hide ads but does NOT block the parsing of messages by Google and so the gathering of information used by Adsense to propose "customized ads" on other domains.

Now, you don't seem to take into account the fact that this overflow of ads we have to face (more and more) on a daily basis actually encourages people to become active or passive ad-avoiders, decreasing then the income generated by ads. I clearly think this kind of business model is not viable over the long-run...


Avoiding ads and completely removing ads are two different things. Avoiding ads is just not paying attention to them, which most people who give their content and services away free of charge in exchange for displaying ads are still making money from those users, even if the user doesn't think they are... CPM ads... Sure the quality of payouts on CPM is based also on click through ratios, but even at the lost CPM it's still something.

Now completely removing the ad using JavaScript also kills that CPM revenue.

These people are leeches. I see removing ads on a site the same way I see pirating movies... Don't want to pay for the cost of a movie ticket because they're so outrageous? Then wait for the movie to come out on DVD, get cheaper, and possibly hit the TV and watch it then... But don't go out and pirate the movie because you feel entitled to watching it free of charge.

Same thing with Gmail, or any service that is ad supported. You are not entitled to using that service free of charge... You are entitled to using it by enduring the advertisements. Removing them is costing the provider money without even recouping a bit of it.

You come to my site, watch a video or view a gallery of pictures or read a bunch of text, whatever... Still costs me money, If I make a penny off you, it's better than nothing... If I make a penny off every user who visits my site, and 100 people come, that's a dollar a day, $30 a month... Paying the bare minimum at least the cost of the VPS I run to give you that content... Completely remove my ads and guess what... I am now paying $30/mo and it's no longer feasible for me to entertain or offer you something without charging you for it... Guess what? Service gets shut down, and then you spend your time griping about how all the good free services end up shutting down and that you wish you could have donated or even paid a small monthly fee to keep it alive... But in reality, all you had to do was endure a simple Adsense block that wasn't even intrusive, but you felt entitled to view the content or use the service while blocking it... And now your service is gone.


You're using a lot of strong language concerning the morality of user action on service revenue, while ignoring your apparent apathy toward the financial benefit of your advertisers. This seems to happen quite often. When the service isn't getting paid because of blocked ads, the users are 'leeches' and 'entitled', but when the advertisers aren't by the avoiders there is no equivalent outrage.


Let me propose to you a similar claim, presented from a different angle: you are not automatically entitled to any revenue for something you created and published on the Internet. Even though you slapped ads on your site, that doesn't mean users must interacts with those ads in a way that will prove you with revenue.

The one way to ensure that anyone who uses your site will provide you with revenue is to make them pay for it. There's nothing inherently wrong with that: it has its pros and cons, like every other business model.

What I'm trying to get across to you is the idea that the morality of ads and ads blocking isn't as simple and clear-cut as you obviously like to think. Calling people who use ad blockers leeches won't solve whatever concrete problem made you post such a bitter comment.

Here's a question for you: is it okay for me to go to your site and then, after the content is rendered, use Evernote Clearly (or some other readability tool) to re-render that content without any ads?

If not, why? Is it because Clearly is another program and you drew an arbitrary line at using software instead of, say, covering parts of screen with paper?

On the other hand, if you answered "yes" to the question about using a readability tool, then would it be "okay" if I used some tool that behaves just as if the ads were being rendered, but it doesn't render them? I'm guessing "no", because that starts to sound unethical. So how about a separate extension that auto-activates a readability tool after the page is rendered?

In other words, where do you draw the line? Or better yet, can you draw the line as clearly as you thought and enjoy your moral high ground? Or should you try to be more flexible and realize that you can't really have it all and there are always trade-offs in every approach you might take?

Maybe it just boils down to a realization that "all complex ecosystems have parasites" [1] and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

[1]: http://craphound.com/complexecosystems.txt


You must have meant to reply to someone else because my point wasn't that it is right, but that the position isn't contradictory.


I don't know. Words like business and freedom come to mind.


Oh sure, they're free to do so (not sure the gmail TOS allows scrapping ads though). But I'm also free to call them up on that :)


This is probably a good approach to the permanent "How to fix email" problem.

"Add-on" is the keyword here. Instead of disrupting your workflow by offering a distinct native app developed from scratch, this simply enhances an already great experience. I consider Gmail's UI very efficient and actually quite close to perfection (speed, reliability, labels, filters, multiple inboxes, keyboard shortcuts...). Gmelius just corrects the small annoyances that remain or have appeared lately.

This reminds me of a sentence in Dropbox's YC application: "With Dropbox, you hit "Save", as you normally would, and everything just works." The worflow isn't altered. It's just better.

Of course, Gmelius is just and add-on, with no clear business model. But maybe that's all we need after all.


Yes, that's called "writing an email client".

Then, we can find some kind of standard protocol between the client and the server so you can use your client with any email provider. We could call it... IMAP!


How exactly does writing an email client satisfy "instead of disrupting your workflow by offering a distinct native app developed from scratch"?


Remind me again why an e-mail client has to be a native app? Is there anything special that makes an e-mail client different from a, say, IRC client, which could be, for example, a browser extension such as Chatzilla?


This is beside the point, as bbx was saying that he preferred Gmail's UI over something new; the new thing living in a browser wouldn't really affect that :)


I'm not arguing with @bbx, I'm replying to your assumption that when @eloisant wrote "email client" he meant "native app email client" ;)

I was trying to express my belief that neither @bbx nor @eloisant were wrong: a browser extension implementing a generic e-mail client that talks to servers using IMAP might be a really good solution. I would certainly like to try using something like that.


IMAP doesn't search as fast and as well as gmail, and probably never will.


Why not? If an IMAP client issues a "SEARCH TEXT foobar" command, why shouldn't Gmail answer as fast and as well as it does online? Nothing in IMAP precludes good efficient search.

Reference: RFC 1730@6.4.4


In fact, it probably does. Also, Gmail IMAP has an IMAP extension to allow using Gmail's full search syntax if desired (https://developers.google.com/gmail/imap_extensions).


Google wants you to use the web interface, or their own mobile apps.


Have you tried something like:

http://wiki.dovecot.org/Plugins/FTS ?


so?

seriously. it does a better job than an old nx mbox, or other technology. i'm not trying to say it's not better, it's just amazing how impatient we've gotten in the last decade, and how much we've bought into "googlethink"


Do you have to express your point so abrasively?


For me, "how to fix email" is to get my nmh setup set up again since moving computers...


I've always loved the idea of making Email better vis-a-vis the hyped rants of replacing Email. Sorry! Email is going no where and neither do existing email services & mail clients completely suck at managing email. Yes, there are some gaps in them and that's what we should try to solve. The whole approach of solving the problems with existing email services & clients vis-a-vis the idea of completely replacing it.

We built MetisMe around this philosophy of making it very easy to search and share attachments inside Email. www.metisme.com .

The next thing that we're targeting upon is can we give more context to the content which is already there inside Email.


Heh, I suppose I was one of the early adopters of this one... IIRC, I have been using this since 2010 or so. This is one of the first FF addons (along with Adblock and Stylish) that gets installed on any new FF installation for me. Wonderful utility, thanks Florian!

I think I emailed him at some point if it would be possible for him to offer this for Yahoo! Mail as well. Since then, Yahoo have modified their own UX for the better, but the request to extend this to Yahoo mail still stands from my end (pretty please, Florian) :-)


I'm not too familiar with web development, so please forgive my question: Is this just a style sheet that the browser knows how to apply, or am I giving you read access to my e-mail?


It's a browser extension - a bit of code that runs some scripts, in this case modifying the style of the page when you go to a specific domain (gmail). Extensions are run inside of the security sandbox for that domain with a higher privilege level than normal webpages - consequently, the extension could send all your email and activity from other tabs to a 3rd party. The Gmelius website says they don't though. You could, if you were so inclined, check the code inside the extension package if you wanted. If it was doing anything dodgy they'd be found out pretty quickly.

tl;dr Yes, it could read all your email. I doubt it does though.


Even easier than checking the source code, you could use a program like Fiddler2 to watch the network traffic from your browser, to double-check that the extension isn't sending home any private data.


Hi, basically the extension injects some CSS and JavaScript into your browser, targeting mail.google.com. It does not read or access your data.


Doesn't injecting JavaScript give you access?


Not unless their JS has ajax calls in it. But technically yeah they could, but, it's a pretty stupid fucken idea considering it would be found out almost immediately and suddenly it has become a blacklisted addon, their reputation has been destroyed etc.

Additionally you could just not update the addon ever if you're OK with it right now.


Seems fair enough to me, so it's basically the shareware security model where any application that carries malware instantly loses its reputation, even though it is technically able to do so. Interesting to see this carried over to web apps.


Just installed it! Really happy with the options page which allows me to enable and disable only the options I want. For example: I actually prefer the new email compose for my work inbox, because I usually have to go around searching and referring to other emails while writing.

Anyway, it is already looking much cleaner and nicer, and I hope it saves some time and makes my emailing experience more efficient. I'll try it out for a week or two, and you will hopefully get a small donation from me :)


Glad you like it. Do not hesitate to send me any suggestions/ideas via the support form ! Best.


I like it too. It is so annoying that companies like Google fail to do this (give users the popular options you do here). The new compose it horrible, horrible, horrible. But Google-borg doesn't care - you must submit to their wishes (you don't want G+ to overtake and break all sorts of your G stuff - too bad).

Your service proves it isn't difficult not to deny users decent Ux options.

Getting rid of IM is also very nice, I am not really sure what the removing G+ stuff does but I know I don't want any G+ stuff interfering with my email client, so I clicked that too.

I do agree with those that say the removing ad thing is not good. It seems fair to me to be stuck with the ads if you use a service that is offered as ad supported.

I tried paying Google but the process of using their $50 a year option is horrible. It isn't just pay $50 and ads disappear, it is pay $50 for our separate app with lots of issues that makes things annoying, breaks, has all sorts of problems when you want to reverse out. Thankfully I just tested it on a brand new account for 2 years and could just let the whole mess die an ugly death. Don't consider it without reading all the horror stories people have had moving their primary email and then trying to get out of the mess created.

I can see Google making the plugin not work or making it really difficult for people if they see too much use since ads are removed - though using gmail with desktop clients doesn't show ads as I understand it so maybe Google will let it go.


If header is removed, you lose the option to Undo after performing some operation. That should be fixed.


Couldn't have this served its purpose as a simple Greasemonkey script?


This is an excellent service/Chrome extension that I have been proudly been using for over two years (I think...) I donated then and I will donate now again. Keep up the great work. It is wonderful.

edit: two years


I've been using "Minimalist for Everything" [1] for over a year, which comes with a great set of rules to clean and customise GMail's interface.

This seems to go further (and allow icons to be customised, which I'd like) - look forward to trying it!

1. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/minimalist-for-eve...


I have been, too. One of the things I really like about MInimalist for Everything ist that I can eliminate the branding from Gmail entirely. We use it for work on an Apps domain, and when traveling I prefer shoulder gazers not to see immediately who I work for.


Wow, a lot of these are things I would do myself (remove the styled font garbage, the hidden email addresses, ads, bring back the good compose window, cleaner print). I have doubts about a browser extension modifying a page working long term, though. Especially when they remove ads and thus place themselves as a negative to Google. I'm more tempted to just switch to an email client.


Old Compose. OWWWW YEAH


And now you are effectively fighting against the direction which the software you are using is heading, while the software should actually be supporting you.

If you weren't already. For me Gmail became a slippery slope of "I don't like that either" incidents.

When I decided to leave it had become an easy decision to make, and once I left it honestly made me feel glad.


What do you use now?


Fastmail which is increedibly fast and lightweight compared to Gmail. It feels like going from Hotmail to Gmail all over again, if you're old enough to remember what that was like.

At home I stick to Thunderbird, which leaves a decent local copy with ability to connect to CardDAV and CalDAV which I handle via Baikal.

Hopefully Fastmail will live up to their promises about providing CardDAV and CalDAV themselves, as that would leave me one less thing to worry about.


i thought you could simply turn it off if you wanted to


Looks like a great product!

One annoyance I have with the page itself though: The top three links are pretty pointless.

Download does nothing unless you scroll down but then that hides the header.

About scrolls down a tiny bit and features just a bit more. The features is probably the most useful of them all but even then it's cutting it short. Why not make the header fixed and actually give some point to those links? :)


I feel like I'd install this extension, only for google to break it in a few days (via code changes or take-down notice)


I've been using this for a little over a year now and on the occasions that changes have caused issues, Florian has fixed them quick enough for there not to be any real hassle.

Now that it supports the old compose interface too, for me, it's incredibly useful.


Genius ! I ticked nearly all of the options as I had grown to find the Gmail interface a complete PAIN. Thank you so much


In the settings interface, "Gmelius gives you the possibility to regain some space and to clean your inbox by removing or disabling:"

... it's not entirely clear in the UI whether checking a box there ENABLES or DISABLES the feature, because normally

[x] feature means "enable this feature", not "disable this feature"


"Move attachment icons from the right to the left of your inbox"

-- sold!!! ... and a bunch of other ones I like too :)


Really nice. For me the best part was allowing me to turn off all the crap related to chat. I don't use Google Talk/Hangouts and don't know anyone who does (might be a regional thing). Being able to hide everything related to chat and status instantly made Gmail much cleaner.


Which region are you in?


Northern Ireland. I've yet to meet anyone using Talk (of course this is just my personal experience, maybe it's big and just the people I know don't use it). Most messaging occurs through SMS, Facebook and now 3rd party apps (Viber is pretty big).


I've been using Gmelius for quite a long time now (a year? more?). I couldn't be happier. Every time I happen to open my gmail in another browser, I'm shocked at just how weird it looks with all the extra clutter.

Thanks for the awesome work!


Gripe: One of the options that I selected reverted Hangouts to the old Google Chat system without explicitly saying so.

EDIT: It was the Old Compose feature, which admittedly is in beta. Still, I'm not a fan of losing the group chats I have open.


> To be clear and to the point, Gmelius will never access, read, store, alter or transmit your personal data.

I'm a trusting person, so I believe them. But privacy is a big issue these days. Not sure a one-liner is enough to assuage doubts.


There are a lot of chrome extensions to improve Gmail UI. Most of them have the same features as these ones.

I went through your list of features, but didn't find anything I'd really be interested in. Not for me.


I understand people's dislike for ads. But how is it possible for Google to provide a free and robust email service to millions without any revenue model? I am asking out of sincere curiosity.


The YouTube video helps explain the product a little bit better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44zaBoaKu0


I don't know one person, who is not "happy enough" with Gmail as it is. I think therefore it would be better if title and starting screen of the website show what is the problem.


Interesting ideas. Attachment icons seem nice. Other than that though the rest of the features aren't helpful for me (or at least not enough that I'd want to install it.)


I love having the old compose both for writing new mails and replying back. Thanks! Any chance you could setup a donate option that doesn't involve paypal? :)


Does this not support the latest safari? Looks awesome and would love to try it but it says it is incompatible with my browser, Safari Version 7.0 (9537.71).


Is it possible to have the extra half of labels auto-expand, when chat is hidden? There is a lot of extra space in the sidebar now.


Personally i am already very happy with the GMAIL interface. The ads are a very minor distraction. And none of the features they show have much appeal to me (except the attachment icon perhaps).

But then again, that's just me.


I don't understand why people take the time to write anti-OP messages in HN threads. Is HN really a better place if, on every post, someone (or 50 people) makes a post about how they like the exact opposite of what the OP is about? It's an opinion - you have one, I have one, but it doesn't always have to be publicly expressed, does it? The people reading the comments here are probably doing so because they agree with OP - so why even bother commenting that your opinion is completely opposite theirs? I genuinely do not understand posts like this, yet I see them time and time again on HN.


It's like PowerToys for Gmail.


Is it compatible with Firefox 24?



Cool greasemonkey script, bro


I use it. Love it.


what does the premium offer?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: