Comment by fareesh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by fareesh | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Came to post this as well. Inbox is a great product, but it seems to have been forgotten - probably because most of the users still use gmail, since getting "normies" to switch to anything is near impossible without social pressure being some contributor to the switch. Plus, Gmail still has a ton of features that were never ported over, which will also prevent some advanced users who rely on these features consistently, from switching.

Inbox is in a weird place - the features we want in Gmail are in Inbox. The features we want in Inbox are in Gmail. The mails are in the same place. The web clients are separate codebases. I can't imagine all the talented people working at either team are happy with this situation given the way their contributions end up not coming to us users because of this separation. If anyone here is on either team, or has some insight into this, I'd really like to understand what the thinking is behind this stuff. The same sort of goes for Allo, Hangouts, etc. What gives, Google?

I think you're missing the point of Inbox. It's not supposed to replace Gmail, not now and not ever. It's an additional way of using Gmail, hence why its full name is actually "Inbox by Gmail".

Inbox is an attempt to make Gmail easier to use for the average user who has simple needs, so all the "power user" features you want aren't supposed to be in Inbox. If your needs are complicated, you can just use Gmail. Inbox doesn't really introduce any new features that Gmail cannot do, it simply reframes Gmail features in a different UI and workflow. For example, Inbox's "done" action is available in Gmail, but in Gmail it's called "archive". Same with Inbox's "bundles": they're just called "tabs" in Gmail.

As an Inbox user, I'm pretty happy with the state of Inbox. I don't need extra features get my stuff done in Inbox. Porting every Gmail feature to Inbox is missing the point.

Does Gmail have email snoozing? It didn't when I switched to Inbox and I wouldn't want to use an email client without it now.

One way to achieve snoozing in any email client is to forward (and archive) the email to 1day@fut.io (or monday@fut.io etc, the syntax is pretty complete and flexible). They will send you back the email at the specified time and date, so it ends up back in your inbox. No GUI but pretty efficient in practice.

Exactly this. This is THE advanced feature I need.

I both agree and disagree. It's certainly a reframing of Gmail in a more light format, but it has one killer feature (which is also the only reason I'm currently using it over Gmail) – email snoozing. To get that in Gmail you need a label-based plugin (desktop only) or a third-party app (to get it on mobile as well) afaik.

> I don't need extra features get my stuff done in Inbox.

I only need signatures in my non-gmail account. This is almost the only reason I switch to gmail now, when I have to send an email to someone outside my institution... it's very frustrating that they implemented signatures but only for gmail accounts.

Inbox actually has a signature feature in the "Settings" panel. It doesn't provide any formatting options, but you can copy-paste your signature from the Gmail signature settings, and it'll keep the formatting and any images you have.

I'd like to see the search in Inbox improved, and get hangouts history. Beyond that I'm pretty happy with it.

I really hope Google won't abandon Inbox and continue developing it, I'd really hate to go back to Gmail.

You could move to Spark (if Mac user)

I've never tried it. I'm moving between Mac and Linux so I need a web based client.

I am in the same boat - Linux for Desktop and MBP for Laptop. Web based clients are essential.

I personally use the snooze feature (time or location-based) quite at lot at work, along with the reminder feature (which also allow to add a note). I forget much less often to take action on an email in a timely manner because of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com