When I think of "most mail clients" I think of Outlook, Thunderbird and so on - I wouldn't term something that didn't support at least one of POP or IMAP an email client. Proprietary email client maybe, like AOL's built-in one...
So your differing point of view means it's OK to malign us publicly? By "FUD" you surely meant to imply that we were trying to do something malicious, when, literally, all we're trying to do is make people's inboxes ever-so-slightly happier places.
To be clear:
- this is a really hard problem
- we're iterating in public to get user feedback
- we're not charging anything and don't have any immediate plans to
- we specifically ask for feedback via <hi@inky.com>
I'm not sure which aspect of this gave you the impression that our objective is to foist -- as you put it -- "false FUD" on poor unsuspecting consumers.
Sorry to bitch, but snarky comments are the main reason HN -- once my absolute favorite place on the web -- is turning into a useless cesspool.
See you on Quora, where the discourse is still reasonably civil.
Inky looks pretty cool, but I had the same reaction as porker when I read that part. I don't think he's trying to malign you, it's just a pretty blatantly false statement amongst a sea of neat-looking stuff.
>> "Most mail clients only support the popular email providers."
This is simply false, as most mail clients really do support IMAP/POP. The statement caught my eye too. No need to get all huffy about someone pointing this out.
> So your differing point of view means it's OK to malign us publicly?
You publicly "malign" your competition in a way that several people in this thread feel is nearly libelous, then get huffy when someone calls you on it. I agree with his view: the conventional (i.e., in the average person's mind) "mail client" supports _any_ conventional "email provider" by definition.
I understand where you were coming from, but the statement itself was too broad, and now your reaction is digging a deeper hole. If a little blunt, I believe the original observation was meant as "feedback" that you claim to want. Nobody was talking about boycotting or ragequitting for a better forum, until you got defensive and refused to respond in a way that doesn't end in a personal insult against the commenter, or a general sneer at the community in general.
Those are potential customers you are yelling at. Really smart early adopters with influence. And a very large number of people are watching.
Whether they are right or wrong, we are all watching for how you handle the situation.
Between this and an avoided answer to whether you keep passwords in the cloud you've lost one potential customer.
We know it makes some uncomfortable to have the credentials in the cloud, but we felt it was important to make it as easy as possible for people to be able to use any device (we're working on iOS and Android) to access all of their email accounts. Of course it's up to you to decide if you trust us, but we've went to great lengths to make sure your emails don't pass through our servers and to keep your credentials secure. We explain our security precautions on our FAQ, which we'll continue to enhance going forward.
I didn't avoid the question on security; I pointed everyone to FAQ that specifically answers that question. And I didn't yell at anyone. But if someone spits in your face, you're allowed to wipe the spit off, aren't you?
dmbaggett, I apologise that you have taken my message this way, and it's true I have been influenced by the all-too-common tone on this site; but I stand by my original comment that this is a line to spread FUD, like any company who tries to make out that their product is so different to the competition. You have unique features I'm sure, a unique take on email - don't rubbish your competition by spreading what is demonstrably not true for most email clients.
Your outburst just lost me as a potential user. If you don't want public feedback don't promote your "email client" on a public website. If you prefer the login-wall circle jerk of Quora, keep your promotions there.
