Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I would love to see some sane, email 2.0 standards like the author talks about.

But, email is only decentralized in theory. In reality, email was fully captured a decade ago by a monopoly of 2 particular inbox providers.

In consumer, Google has a defacto monopoly and runs the show. In B2B, Microsoft has a defacto monopoly and runs the show.

Nothing can change without Google or Microsoft making the move first. And neither of these companies have any interest in changing/improving anything, given they already have a monopoly in their respective corner of the market.

What we need first, is to lower switching costs to open up the market again. This could mean making DNS less of a nightmare so domain-based email becomes easy again. This could mean a government mandate that your email address (like a phone number) must be allowed easy transfer to other providers (Since Google owns the Gmail.com domain, they own your "phone number" in a sense). Etc. Etc.

Imagine if Google and Microsoft owned your physical mailbox...and they decided what type of letters you could receive from who...and they sold ad-space in it. That's essentially what we've done with our digital mailboxes.




> And neither of these companies have any interest in innovating

I don’t think this is true, or at least I think they have a strong interest in standardizing. Enterprise and personal users are routinely frustrated with Outlook and Gmail for dumb UI problems which are largely due to a lack of standardization. The only solution requires collective action. In addition, a well-written technical specification outsources a lot of difficult or highly specific questions to a committee of experts (kind of like how the C specification is an excellent technical manual, or K&R was a good de facto specification).

Gmail and Outlook both have market lock-in on personal / business email because of how their email clients integrate with other personal / business software. (Gmail is also given a hand by rational consumer apathy; Gmail is fine and free, changing email addresses is a pain.) I don’t think either company would gain or lose any competitive advantage by standardizing things around email itself. But it would probably reduce a lot of technical management headaches.


> What we need first, is a government mandate that your email address (like a phone number) must be allowed easy transfer to other providers. As long as Google owns the Gmail.com domain, they will be able to hold the entire network hostage.

A mandate is perhaps heavy handed, but a statement that the government will no longer communicate via e-mail and only via protocol X would be appropriate.

As for the email transfer... that would certainly have to be a new protocol. There is no mechanism to do anything of the sort today. the @... part literally means @ that server.


Enterprise and regulated communications can break any monopoly if the money/legislators agree that an alternative is better. Let’s say, EU issues a directive that certain types of communications must adhere some requirements which email v1 cannot implement. It will automatically create the market for email v2 and v1-to-v2 gateways. Or Salesforce and Meta agree on a new protocol for CRM comms, that brings more trust to email v2 campaigns, because SF can certify senders and Meta recipients.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: