I think the file format itself is the most trivial aspect of this whole thing. Even if you'd roll your own, you probably could cobble together some kind of XML/JSON based copy of the message DB diff within hours (or just use RSS).
Gmail is clearly more of a beta than a functional product (namely attachements don't seem to work), but the biggest question/implication of this change I see is evaporation of any business model (as in 'the ads are gone').
Besides that - I like the UI a lot, but for any offline access to make sens it has to be rock solid (which this obviously isn't).
Attachments should work, with a few caveats. Due to some annoying quirks of the HTML5 FileSystem API, there's a whitelist of supported file extensions. This includes everything useful we could think of, but it's not exhaustive.
My experience was the opposite, unfortunately. Why can't the offline gmail application use the same UI as the online one? To me, that would be the obvious way of doing it.
in an offline mode how would you monetise offline ad clicks? google's business model is based on ctr not cpm. are you thinking of caching ads/pages too?
offline gmail is disappointing. it's basically the tablet version, meaning the consistent google interface is lost, labs features are lost, keyboard shortcuts are lost, theming options are lost, google nav bar is gone, etc...
offline docs and offline calendar is not available but from the description, it sounds they have proper implementations.
What a massive failure. I wonder if they realized they weren't going to hit the deadline so they decided to do a quick implementation with the tablet app. The old rumors that Gmail is a massive spaghetti mess must be true. Let's just hope they're actively rewriting it and don't think this is good enough.
One thing we learned early on was that making any existing system (especially one as big as Gmail) work offline had some very difficult, fundamental issues. The biggest of these is that everything that normally happens server-side must also be able to happen client-side when there's no network connection.
This is a problem not only because there is a lot of server-side complexity in Gmail, but also because it changes all the time. New features are added, old behavior is changed, and if the offline code path isn't changed along with it, things have a tendency to break horribly. The only solutions to this involve having every Gmail engineer modify the offline code path whenever they touch the online, which is a large burden that we weren't willing to lay on them.
Maybe they just want a solution that people can use RIGHT NOW. What's wrong with that?
I'm thankful for Google providing this solution though I'm hoping for a better one in the future.
Calling it a massive failure is just mean-spirited.
You call yourself an "aspiring entrepreneur" but I don't think you understand what it means to be one and actually build stuff. If you do, you wouldn't be making comments like that.
Gmail is probably Google's biggest product after search. It's also been around for a long time, so you do have to keep that in mind.
I would presume the Gmail team are still working on offline, but Google prefers launch + iterate, rather than waiting for things to reach a "finished" state. This was the quickest way to get people to an offline Gmail product.
DISCLAIMER: I'm an intern at Google, but have no information about these products apart from what is publicly known.
This comment is completely out of line. Trashing something pretty decent on its launch day is not a sign of elevated or discerning taste, it's a sign of someone who does not understand how hard it is to ship something.
Having some kind of offline Gmail (and Docs and Calendar!) is indeed a VERY big win, even if it doesn't have every conceivable feature on day one. It makes Chromebooks that much more appealing.
Ok, the UI and launcher are different. That's not "massive failure", that's minimum viable product. Yeah, even Google does that.
Since you develop for the Chrome app store, did that particular comment advance your cause? Are there particulars you could point them toward, or identify things they should keep in the total re-write you hope for?
It's still August. Stuff doesn't get rushed out until the end of a quarter when OKRs are looming. At that point you can push any old thing and get away with it.
In other words, check back in a month to see even worse.
At the risk of sounding like a troll, which I'm genuinely not trying to be, this problem is more than solved when using Outlook with hosted Exchange or Office 365.
That works absolutely perfectly over unreliable connections and in offline mode.
It's also been around for nigh on 10-15 years now.
Outlook with hosted Exchange or Office 365 is a solution which suits some people. However, there are many for whom the Gmail, Calendar and Docs combo works better. Consider money, sharing and other factors and you'll see why the "been around for nigh on 10-15 years" doesn't mean much.
[+] [-] aninteger|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if someone could take the idea of QWK and build it into modern web forums / email systems.
[+] [-] mhd|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1880|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyber|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffraff|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcin|14 years ago|reply
Besides that - I like the UI a lot, but for any offline access to make sens it has to be rock solid (which this obviously isn't).
[+] [-] nex3|14 years ago|reply
Attachments should work, with a few caveats. Due to some annoying quirks of the HTML5 FileSystem API, there's a whitelist of supported file extensions. This includes everything useful we could think of, but it's not exhaustive.
[+] [-] cabalamat|14 years ago|reply
My experience was the opposite, unfortunately. Why can't the offline gmail application use the same UI as the online one? To me, that would be the obvious way of doing it.
[+] [-] naner|14 years ago|reply
You can use Gmail with AdBlock or through a POP or IMAP client, too. I think Google will survive.
[+] [-] antr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] voxmatt|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davorak|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csulok|14 years ago|reply
offline docs and offline calendar is not available but from the description, it sounds they have proper implementations.
[+] [-] mvelie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danberger|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ditojim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] micampe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bzbarsky|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewPhillips|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nex3|14 years ago|reply
One thing we learned early on was that making any existing system (especially one as big as Gmail) work offline had some very difficult, fundamental issues. The biggest of these is that everything that normally happens server-side must also be able to happen client-side when there's no network connection.
This is a problem not only because there is a lot of server-side complexity in Gmail, but also because it changes all the time. New features are added, old behavior is changed, and if the offline code path isn't changed along with it, things have a tendency to break horribly. The only solutions to this involve having every Gmail engineer modify the offline code path whenever they touch the online, which is a large burden that we weren't willing to lay on them.
[+] [-] dannyr|14 years ago|reply
I'm thankful for Google providing this solution though I'm hoping for a better one in the future.
Calling it a massive failure is just mean-spirited.
You call yourself an "aspiring entrepreneur" but I don't think you understand what it means to be one and actually build stuff. If you do, you wouldn't be making comments like that.
[+] [-] Lewisham|14 years ago|reply
I would presume the Gmail team are still working on offline, but Google prefers launch + iterate, rather than waiting for things to reach a "finished" state. This was the quickest way to get people to an offline Gmail product.
DISCLAIMER: I'm an intern at Google, but have no information about these products apart from what is publicly known.
[+] [-] temphn|14 years ago|reply
Having some kind of offline Gmail (and Docs and Calendar!) is indeed a VERY big win, even if it doesn't have every conceivable feature on day one. It makes Chromebooks that much more appealing.
Ok, the UI and launcher are different. That's not "massive failure", that's minimum viable product. Yeah, even Google does that.
[+] [-] niels_olson|14 years ago|reply
There are googlers here on HN, and they are trying to make right by offline access (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2627365).
Since you develop for the Chrome app store, did that particular comment advance your cause? Are there particulars you could point them toward, or identify things they should keep in the total re-write you hope for?
[+] [-] rachelbythebay|14 years ago|reply
In other words, check back in a month to see even worse.
[+] [-] casemorton|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pointyhat|14 years ago|reply
That works absolutely perfectly over unreliable connections and in offline mode.
It's also been around for nigh on 10-15 years now.
[+] [-] tommi|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ditojim|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zura|14 years ago|reply