The big tragedy there is the loss for the visually impaired. They can switch to a new email provider, but they will have to switch over any necessary emails such as subscription reminders and they will have to be able to download or transfer what might be a decade’s worth of archived emails. That will likely be beyond some of them in terms of technical capability and possibly accessibility.
But then Google couldn’t give two shits about the disabled.
debounced@kbin.run 1 year ago
it's also a big FU to anyone accessing Gmail's web interface over geostationary satellite internet connections. i had to deal with that shit for a few months and HTML mode was the only way to ease the pain of how bad the latency can get. the "normal" view would hang like a mofo all the time.
GigglyBobble@kbin.social 1 year ago
Wouldn't a locally installed IMAP client produce less traffic than any web UI? I only use those.
nexusband@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes, it would and I will never understand why someone would use the web interface.
Ansis@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 year ago
Because Gmail filters emails by type. Receiving emails on a client throws all the garbage in one inbox.
Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I can’t speak for others, but I typically don’t use email on the PC. When it is more convenient to use the PC, usually because of an attachment, I will log into the browser version.
Nahvi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Agreed. I’ve reverted to HTML mode recently when tethering from my phone. The signal is bad enough sometimes that it makes a world of difference. Gmail was virtually unusable until I realized HTML mode was still an option.
Really just time to bite the bullet and acknowledge that it is worth the hassle to switch away from a company that I don’t like or trust.