Unlimited google email storage
July 4, 2008
Talk about email storage to IT managers and they tend to start going this funny colour. Users can’t seem to manage their Inbox apparently, although not the exact words they use.
This has come up time and again, where, on behalf of the user experience, it is up to me to persuade I.T that voice messages have to reside in the email store.
During the conversation you can see this assume huge proportions in the minds eye, and I always used to show my own mailbox to calm them down……a bit.
So its an area of interest.
I just saw that in my personal email, on Google, that I’ve used 93MB of 6 Gig. In a year and a half.
So I check my Exchange work mailbox, I now have ALL historical emails saved locally – although I’m good at deleting very large emails first – I have 2.5 Gig, in 3 years. Including unified messaging.
By my calculations then Google are effectively giving me unlimited storage. They seem to put it up every month, I could easily have 7 years of email before deleting anything at all. Which is surely what most people would ever need. Or am I behind the multimedia times.
You gotta love that.
Recalling emails doesn't work
February 25, 2008
It’s Funny when you see someone try to recall an email.
Of course, the recall function serves only to highlight the original email to be read more closely, just to see where the rickett has been dropped, and how loud the clang was.
Another example of a terrible email mistake here at email tide
There are three Matt Lambert’s in the UK around the technology field, one at Microsoft and one at a telecoms company. So, I do get voicemails from people I’ve never heard of every now and again….although nothing interesting. But the more people you are ‘acquainted’ with, the less well you might know them, and this is going to happen more often.
In the comments in the linked article, there is a Thunderbird plugin that is designed with the ‘are you sure you want to send this’ button built in. Not bad, but possibly subject to the similar address blindness after a while.
What this highlights (again) is the fact that Email is a fairly blunt tool with which to be handling sensitive documents.
Surely there must be some enterprise 2.0 software that could handle a central repository, and sharing mechanism for messages, without overloading the user with yet more passwords. It makes you wonder if any other legal companies have gone with Google Docs for this?
Is Sharepoint the right vehicle – I’ve heard varying reports. I’ve got another Avanquest training session on this next week, perhaps it will sink in this time.
Talking of Passwords, methinks it is worth another look at OpenID again.
Gmail for business – Google Apps mini review
February 10, 2008
When I looked for free web based email, I knew Gmail was going to be the best option.
With huge amounts of storage, accessible from my various PC’s, Spam filters and desktop notifications (so I don’t have to check for new mail, which is the most important), plus Gtalk Instant Messaging on the same login – so it proved.
Thus, when I wanted to have separate ‘blog’ email, I took a look at Google Apps (it’s free, so why not).
Google Apps is Gmail, but with your own domain – (e.g. mail is sent to name@company.com) but with all the above benefits, and more. Being free, I think it’s great value, and even at the premier edition at $50 per user per year – compared to the cost of running premises based equivalents is a no brainer.
Setting it up does mean you need your own domain, and access to the control panel to follow google’s instructions in moving the Email MX records…..it’s easier than it sounds though, and knowing someone who can help is useful.
On first impressions, it was good. But last year…..
I had the problem of trying to access two separate Gmail accounts from the same machine – it turned out to be very unwieldy flicking from account to account and notifications weren’t as timely if I wasn’t logged in.
It’s amazing how the little things prevent you from using and being completely happy with software.
Recently however, Google Apps and Gmail have both moved to supporting IMAP, and my problems have been solved. It’s brilliant!
One of the most useful additional applications is Docs – great for sharing information between boundaries….accessible from anywhere. I haven’t worked out my three different calendars yet, but there are apparently synching apps available.
I’m now using Thunderbird to receive and send mail from multiple gmail accounts (as well as a separate email account for work!). I can still be logged in to my primary gmail account (personal) for most of the day.
With all the above facilities, Google Apps is aimed at companies – but I always wondered whether companies would get over the trust issue. That is, trusting Google to look after their email.
I figured for my own part that if Google let any information go, their share price would slide, and therefore they had more to lose than I did.
Email server, Software, support, Spam software, archiving, the list of savings just goes on.
If you don’t need to support a LAN to run documents and email (with failover support), this tends to help free up both funds and the staff from looking after it, not to mention users who can literally work anywhere with mobile broadband.
It has to be worth most small companies time in having a look at this, and if Legal companies are happy to trust their customer’s information, then that shouldn’t stop anyone.
The question of what replaces multi-person email
November 6, 2007
I caught sight of a post by chip griffin, arguing that the stuff he saw at the defrag conference – which seems to be a collaboration technology show – wasn’t compelling enough to replace email.
Email is simple and ubiquitous, so why replace it.
I think that’s a contentious point – and probably purposefully so. These bloggers eh, always stirring the pot. As if I didn’t come across his missive through RSS.
But Chip looks from the point of view of a user – and I happen to agree with that point. Complicated isn’t good.
My own view is that email is great when it’s one to one, and when the extent of the interaction is easily defined. Question – Answer – Done.
But Email can go horribly wrong where there are multiple parties, or where an ongoing conversation is required.
So – what problems are there with email? Here’s a few I can think of, feel free to suggest more.
- Where can I look to see progress around a topic that involves a few of us – where can anyone look to see progress? I know….lets send another email and ask.
- Email is fraught with the following problem: If I email you with a question about the project and you haven’t responded – who’s responsibility is it that the action didn’t get done? It’s mine of course….but email blurs the lines and makes it difficult. “He didn’t get back to me” is something you hear over and over
- Email hides what is important, and gives you what is urgent (your newest emails) instead.
- If someone joins the conversation late, where can they look to get up to speed
Have I missed anything?
In short, I don’t think the email problem is actually a myth, but just what we do about it isn’t exactly clear. I thought it was going to be SharePoint – but from what I read, the jury is still out there too.
There are no shortage of new innovative companies looking at the issue. Anything topic based catches the eye. From that acquisition of Parlano, perhaps Microsoft still think there is more work to be done around collaboration too.
Presence should be conditional
October 19, 2007
At the moment, presence is a bit like opening a christmas package to find some bits and a pot of glue.
And, there are pieces missing. Even when you’ve been using presence for a while, something just doesn’t feel right.
Here’s the thing -
I don’t care who you are (sorry mother), there are times when I don’t want to talk to you, at that moment.
Conversely, it might vary, depending on why you need to talk to me….I’m becoming a master of the obvious.
IF THEN EQUALS
So – presence ’status’ should be conditional upon what you want to talk to me about
Send an invitation to converse (I know that’s what a ringing phone is), but send it with the subject – and if you get an affirmative response, ‘WE’ can then go about deciding on the best method and time to do it.
By WE, of course I mean clever software that AUTOMATICALLY detects when we both can and would do it.
The only additional fluff could be with the level of urgency, or importance – I’m not sure which, but probably the latter – to be attached by both the invitee and respondee to the subject, and that should be 1,2,3 or maybe 4.
The final requirement is that when we do get to speak, all of the items we’ve hitherto agreed to speak about are listed on a screen, which means we can make notes and either tick them off or agree to invite someone else into the subject.
The lower the combined importance numbers, the higher in the list the subject goes.
You know what, it makes much more sense than ‘ringing’ someone without knowing beforehand whether its a good subject, or time.
I do have deja vu at this point. So maybe this is something I’ve already seen – but if so, then it needs more publicity so that I can remember it better…..so link back here.
I’m minded of the following.
Albert Einstein quote – If A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut
Unified Communications and Trivergence
May 1, 2007
Unified Communications is taking us away from being reliant on feature rich telephony devices like proprietary IP Telephony handsets and corporate mobile devices.
I’ve been looking at the concept for a while and On Accenture’s Trivergence blog, Andy Zimmerman coins the “trivergence” phrase, I can link to the explanation.
The reason I picked it up is that one of the key aspects of this trivergence (type of convergence) is to abstract a user interface to any application, away from the devices that you use, onto the network, and accessible via the PC screen or browser.
To a degree I guess this has been happening since the demise of the typewriter, but this will continue into disruptive communications solutions. Perhaps its why Gartner warn against buying handsets with screens.
As an example, the Ipod is easier to stuff full of music when using iTunes, rather than navigating and downloading from a website from a screen measuring 2 inches square.
Further, he relates
About two years ago, when Accenture’s Innovation Center was researching Trivergence, we mocked up an application that transferred certain cellphone controls from the handset to a PC display, which we dubbed a SoftPanel. In focus groups, cellphone users were asked to perform a set of tasks (managing contact lists, sifting through voice mail, buying ring tones, etc.) first on the cellphone itself and then on the SoftPanel.
The results were unambiguous. Nearly 100% of respondents said they preferred using the SoftPanel for these tasks. It was clear to almost everyone that there should be a seamless integration between the PC and the handset – with each device doing what it does best, and doing it on a regular basis.
Also he says
one of Accenture’s analysts sent me these comments from a discussion on cellphone usability:
“Mobile devices are still not intuitive enough for average users to navigate, and consumers do not have the time or interest to go through carriers’ service catalogues to figure out just exactly what is available to them.
“As carriers continue to layer on services, discovery mechanisms on mobile handsets are critical to enabling users to access desired applications and services with the simple touch of a button.”
Personally, I use Google Reader because I can access the pre-configured reader and articles when on the train through a browser. It is an example of application control being browser based rather than being developed specifically for each device individually. The application persists across whicever device I happen to be using, and this only succeeds if the application server is browser based.
Another post from the Trivergence blog, around Grand Central, shows how a very feature rich call control of an inbound telephony service has been abstracted from telephone devices all together by being browser based.
We’ve all used dozens of phone devices in our time, perhaps future phones will be simpler instead of more complex.