Last year I looked at a new app called Mailbox that was promising to tame the beast that is your gmail inbox. At the time, I was turned off for a couple of reasons:
- There was a wait list within the application before I could use it. There were something like 500,000 people ahead of me. This seemed bogus to me at first.
- They store my email on their servers. I have my own system of rules setup within gmail, so this did not seem like an appealing approach to me.
- It was only available for gmail. I have an Exchange account for work and an iCloud account for personal communications. I was really looking for a more complete solution.
I finally gave in and began using the app a few weeks ago, and I really like it. I thought through my original list of complaints, and have come to grips with them in the following ways:
- Because they were storing messages, they needed disk and i/o capacity. The wait list approach allowed them to grow predictably rather than get flooded and be rated as a crappy app out of the gate. I think ratings probably did suffer a little bit by the wait list (e.g. it too me a long time to go back and give them a try), but in the end I haven’t heard anything negative about their service overall.
- Google stores my email on their servers. If I allowed them to, with all of their data mining and ad targeting capabilities, why wouldn’t I let someone else? How much worse could it really be?
- Mailbox added support for iCloud and Yahoo. This made it so that all my personal mail (gmail and iCloud) could be processed by their app, and my work email could be entirely processed by the native iPhone email app.
What does mailbox provide that my own rules based approach not? Reminders. With Mailbox, I have the ability to tell it to remind me of a particular message later today, tonight, tomorrow, or at some future date and time. It then removes that message from my inbox so it does not clutter my thinking. At the appropriate time, I get a notification on my phone and the message re-appears for me to act on. The service also works with gmail rules – I just have to go back in and change my rules that route to my old “_Read” label to the one within Mailbox. This will make it so that newsletters and other general information sources automatically go in a “to read” list that I can process when I have free time to catch up on stuff.
So far, so good. I am happy with the application as is, but also looking forward to seeing what these guys do next.
Google posted results yesterday that were deeply disappointing to Wall Street. At the close of after-market trading, Google was down over 11%. Many individuals may brush this off as no big deal – but many mutual funds have invested heavily in the search giant to prop up an otherwise less than stellar portfolio.
One of my mutuals has a heavy exposure, holding somewhere around 4,000,000 shares (I think that’s the number, but I won’t name its name in case I’m wrong). I guess I will find out after the closing bell today when the net asset values of all my mutuals are marked to market just how exposed to this one company I am.
Note that I am prepared for this and I think I have isolated it to one mutual fund. But I’m willing to be that others that take a backseat when managing their portfolios (IRAs, 401ks, savings, etc) won’t be so lucky.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s entry, I thought I would explore the censorship that Google was enacting in order to appease the Chinese government. The protests and ensuing violence that took place near Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989 are a taboo topic in China and only the views of the party are allowed to be disseminated. Many of you would think this would be one of the first things to be censored.
Search Engine Watch posted a side-by-side comparison of images.google.com and images.google.cn doing a search for tiananmen using the western character set. Yes, there seems to be some censorship going on there. They suggest that you mis-spell tiananmen (change the a’s to e’s) at which point you will have defeated the english censorship. While that is interesting, it’s not realistic of how a Chinese gal sitting behind a computer is going to do a Google search.
I think I have my translation proper that Tiananmen = 天安門 – it’s the gate of heavenly ascension. When you execute this search, you will notice towards the bottom of the first page what looks like stain in the shape of a human body. If you click through, you will find a Japanese page with all sorts of images of crushed bicyclists, tanks, the access road to Tiananmen Square, etc. Based on the results, I guess my Chinese translation is correct.
So what is being censored? Based on my non-scientific approach, it is hard to say. My assertion yesterday was that the Chinese wanted to preclude its citizens from creating and viewing sites that promote unrest and revolt against the government. There is probably more to it, but I don’t think it is as clear cut as the paranoid American society wants to make it.
Google has received a lot of flack over the past week regarding their refusal to hand over information to the US Department of Justice and their agreement with the chinese to censor search results. I think it is unfair to characterize these decisions as greedy. Rather, it is smart business that is merely observing the laws of the jurisdictions they wish to operate in.
For those of you in the United States, if a police officer came to your home (without a warrant or any prompting of any kind) and asked you if he could look around, would you let him? Probably not. Does that mean you have something to hide? No. It just means that in the United States, we have some level of a right of privacy from governmental intrusion without probably cause. If you were a US citizen staying in the Beijing International Hotel and an officer came to your room and asked if he could look around, would you let him? The fact is, you probably wouldn’t have a choice, but you would be saving face by allowing it and would end up with a lot less hassle in the end.
My point is that businesses are just like people in that they have to operate according to the laws of the juridictions they are operating within. If the DOJ could come up with a good reason other than “you have a lot of data and we sure would like to look at it”, it would be a different matter. But simply wanting to look at their data isn’t a good enough reason for them to hand it over in the United States.
Conversely, while China is the site of increasing demonstration and protest activity, speech is not a freedom like it is in the United States. The Internet has opened the world to the Chinese like nothing else could. Information flows freely much the same as it does here. My understanding of what the Chinese government is trying to censor is access to sites that incite political unrest that goes beyond civil disobedience. Some sites offer viewpoints and suggestions that are the equivalent of yelling FIRE! in a movie theatre.
I imagine they will eventually reach the same level of freedoms we are at (after all, nirvana is central to the buddhist faith). If Iraq has taught us one thing, it should be that governments cannot change their forms overnight. It is a slow and sometimes painful process. We are used to getting things on demand, but changing the way of life for 1.5 billion people can’t be one of those things. So let Google help them censor some stuff – just imagine how the rest of what is in their indexes can benefit from having China engaged in the conversation.