Today Mozilla, the company behind your favorite open source web browser and email client, has launched a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, focused entirely on email and Internet communications. Mozilla Messaging is the name and ignoring prevalent web trends is the game. That is, the prevalent trends relating to the proliferation and utility of highly accessible web applications instead of local software.
Mozilla Messaging CEO David Ascher explained the new company’s plans by talking about the next version of Thunderbird.
Specifically, Thunderbird 3 will build on the great base that is Thunderbird 2 (and the work already performed in trunk by the current and past contributors), and add some key features, such as:
- integrated calendaring (building on the great work done by the Mozilla Calendar team and their Lightning add-on to Thunderbird),
- better search facilities,
- easier configuration,
- and a set of other user interface improvements.
Okay, that’s nice but it looks like just a few new features. It doesn’t seem like the type of paradigm shift Mozilla is aiming for with the creation of Mozilla Messaging and the aura floating around it. David seems to be missing the whole movement towards web applications. Unless Mozilla starts recognizing this, they will remain behind hugely successful web applications geared towards email communications, such as Google Apps and Zimbra Collaboration Suite.
There are interesting possibilities to consider there as web application technologies become faster, richer, and better integrated with the desktop experience, which will inform our long-term planning.
David made a slight nod in the direction of web apps but puts it on the back-burner for when web app technology is “ready to catch-up with desktop software”, essentially. This shouldn’t be the case. Mozilla Messaging needs to be doing whatever they can to cater to the web app users of today, if they can. If you ask me, desktop email clients might even be a lost cause. I’m curious as to what exactly their “long-term planning” includes.. perhaps a way of syncing the Thunderbird database and settings online for multiple clients to work seamlessly?
Naturally, the business types that live in Microsoft Outlook will think I have lost it but I have been leading a web app life for quite some time. I have been on Gmail since 2004, then I got on Gmail for hosted domains in 2006 and then I migrated to Google Apps for domains in 2007. As for school email, Georgia Tech is currently in the middle of a migration to Zimbra and my account is set for migration tomorrow. (If you go to Georgia Tech and have yet to schedule a migration, do so here: mail.gatech.edu/signup).
Mozilla Messaging – yes, no or epic fail?
I’ll leave you with another piece of David Ascher’s launch post:
It is worthwhile considering what the right user experience could be for someone using multiple email addresses, multiple instant messaging systems, IRC, reading and writing on blogs, using VoIP, SMS, and the like. What parts of those interactions make sense to integrate, and where?
He’s right to ask about which interactions make sense to integrate down the line. I’m not sure I would want something that does all of those things. It reminds me of a page in Don Norman’s The Design of Everyday Things where he asked his students to design a device combining a radio, cassette player, CD player, telephone, answering machine, clock, alarm and desk lamp.
For a different take on the Mozilla Messaging news, read my friend Jason Mick’s article on DailyTech.
Tweet This
Stumble This
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
If Mozilla announced an online webmail client based on Thunderbird but taking an aim at Gmail, I would sit up and take notice. If Mozilla Messaging was a cross browser, decentralised replacement for MSN/AIM and makes Jabber appealing to the masses… great. But it is just the same mail client, different name.
You are right, this seems to be a strange move for Mozilla, mostly I see Thunderbird as a replacement for Outlook on Windows. On OSX Apple Mail does the job, and with IMAP interaction to gmail it is on a winner. Plus Facebook and Twitter messaging seems to have replaced, (not in a good way in my view), email messaging anyway.
Here is an idea, a Mozilla backed desktop app that plugs into your online life and makes a backup for local searching/archiving when Google servers fall over, Facebook takes a dive, or some clumsy road digger slices through your cable to the world. If they do, I expect 30% of the revenue from this product.
More from author
Hmm… I wonder why such a big deal is being made of such a (seemingly) mundane bit of client-side software? This is a bit of a mystery to me too. (Maybe they have something up their sleeves, but don’t want to reveal it until later?)
Whatever the case, I’m definitely with you in regards to web-based email. I’ve been using Gmail for a while now, and I even use it to pull in my official Georgia Tech mail (via pop3). I didn’t realize that Georgia Tech was switching to Zimbra campus-wide, I had just assumed it was the College of Computing. I am *very* excited to see how this works out!
More from author
I do wonder how smart it would be for Mozilla to go after gmail, etc? It’d have to be really good for me to switch, I actually like having everything in one place. And Apple Mail isn’t open-source but it suites my needs just fine. I’ve never been a fan of Thunderbird, it just never seemed to be that good. Maybe if they just made a knockdown incredible (and highly integrable like suggested above) product, then I’d be more interested.
More from author
Hey Paul,
Do you use Mail.app on your Mac with your gmail accounts? I find the fact that IMAP allows for offline copies of my gigs worth of gmail absolutely valuable. I wonder if it’s true that desktop email apps will ever be truly replaceable. I’d love to see better integration between popular web apps and our desktop equivalents. Gmail made a good start with IMAP. Now imagine direct support for iCal with Google Calendar. Sure, SpanningSync and BusySync offer (paid) solutions but neither is truly as full-proof as keying ALL entries into Google Cal or vise versa rather than syncing.
Just curious mostly on your impressions of having an offline copy of your mail with you at all times. Not just for backups but for when your in an area without connection. Is that likely to be a problem 5 years down the road? Probably not. Verizon, AT&T, and TMobile all announced today and yesterday unlimited cell and data plans which are competitively priced. With 3G/EVDO Rev. A spreading and becoming more accessible (financially), we may indeed see a day where “offline” doesn’t even exist in our vocab.
More from author
Speaking of Mail.app…I tried to use it with IMAP Gmail and Mail dies everytime. Has anyone seen this?
More from author
@Shahrum – I use the web interface for Gmail instead of IMAP, although my iPhone uses its mail.app.
I can vouch for that at the bare min.
As for needing an offline copy of my mail.. I don’t really have that need. I’ve already read my old mail and usually don’t have a need to look at it again unless I am in the process of replying to a new email and need to look up a person or past conversation.. so it’s generally not much of an issue anyway unless I’m online.
More from author
@Jordan – Yup! GT is one of the first universities to go to Zimbra. Mentioned in Yahoo!’s acquisition post:
http://ycorpblog.com/2007/09/17/zimbra-is-so-damn-cool/
More from author
I use a mozilla mail client- firefox+gmail. It’s all I need.
Like sunbird- my response is “meh.”
More from author
depends on how you look at it really. Even though I personally use Gmail, I know a lot of people still hooked to their desktop email, including those who use their own server set ups (and don’t want to migrate to Gmail).
I personally still have Thunderbird still set up (using Gmail IMAP), I think it’s wonderful in comparison to Outlook Express and even Outlook. Sadly, don’t get to use it much since Gmail is, frankly, addictive.
Cheers,
S.T
More from author
I think you’re heavily underestimating the position of desktop e-mail clients in the e-mail and messaging market. Indeed, AJAX makes things easier. But in terms of managing large volumes of e-mail in an office setting, desktop e-mail clients still dominate, as far as I’m concerned.
I use Gmail for my low volume of personal e-mail and I use Thunderbird at work for a high volume of work e-mail via IMAP. Gmail wouldn’t cut it at work when you compare the speed of the two, both for reading e-mail, and searching and browsing through large volumes of e-mail. AJAX requests, while preferable to a full page draw for things like e-mail, still require time to complete and then subsequently render data.
Also at work, I rely on Thunderbird and I rely on my office e-mail server. Having to rely on Gmail as another party (Gmail’s reliability has been called into question a number of times in the past), is just another headache that you don’t want or need in an office environment where you can’t dick around with what’s “cool”, but rather have to focus on what will maximize efficiency in both the short and long term and what will ultimately be the most reliable solution.
But, that’s work stuff. I’m sure my mother could use anything for e-mail and be a happy campy as long as it worked most of the time. But I’m thinking that Mozilla is gearing this more towards my needs, not hers!
@Brandon – As for Gmail’s reliability – for enterprise stuff, you’d most likely be looking at the Premier account with a guaranteed SLA. Regardless, you bring up some great points. I threw out the whole “desktop emails clients are a lost cause” to be a bit controversial and bring out some interesting comments. Thanks for the insight.
More from author
Hi Paul,
I disagree with your stance regarding web apps. I love desktop applications for their look and feel, the offline accessability, data security, and the feeling of control over it.
I wrote a little bit more detailed about it on my blog.
More from author
Thanks for the comment Sebastian. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I love not being “tied down” to one particular machine. I love being able to do everything I usually do, from any computer, with just a browser. cloud++
More from author
Well if you set up IMAP on your email account (eg: google) you would be able to use both because it leaves the messages on the server and whatever you do on the desktop client will happen in the web based one. (eg: read an email in your Desktop client and it will become marked as read on the server)
@snake – I am well aware of the benefits of IMAP. In the case of Google Apps/Gmail I just prefer using the web interface.
More from author
I think that many of you are missing the forest for the trees. It would be suicidal for Mozilla to try to release a Web-based client at this time. Why? The space is too crowded and there’s too much competition. In addition to Hotmail Live, Yahoo and Gmail, you’ve got a hundreds of web-hosts that offer Web-based email access, Joyent Connector’s Email application and a slew of other stuff. It’s just too crowded. However, in regards to desktop apps, there’s only 3: Outlook/Entourage (OS X), Mail (for OS X) and Thunderbird. The scene is much liek the early days of Firefox…the only other competition in town was Internet Explorer. So, in the Foundation’s eyes, this is a ripe and mature move for them to make. It’s in this this thinking that I both agree and disagree.
With Microsoft’s eventuall hostile takeover of Yahoo!, Zimbra will evntually go the way of the Doo-Doo Bird (or is it Do-Do?). It won’t happen overnight, but M$ WILL kill Zimbra. Why? It’s the ONLY thing currently on the market that is giving Exchange any kind of competition. And we all know how Ballmer feels about cometition……assimilate or die!!!!
What Mozilla should have have been cooking up was a server system like Exchange, but built and maintained on open-source technology and standards like all of their other products. If Zimbra dies, then Mozilla Messaging moves into the number two spot and ensures that Exchange continues to have competition and is forced to continue to grow and innovate. If the merger never happens, them Zimbra and MM duke it out for the number two spot and customers win across the board as they gain THREE solid products that can be used in business settings.
Obviously, the question comes up: how do they fund it? Moz gets the majority of their funding from search rev from Google. That’s the seed money. The money to actually maintain the system comes from paid plans (which Moz keeps saying that they want to avoid, but you gotta keep the lights on somehow). I know this sounds really far-fetched and all, but truly, this is where I thought they were headed when I saw the new CEO get interviewed on GigaOm last week. Sadly, it seems that even Moz is missing the forest for thee trees……
When I was at Tech, I took CS3750 and had to read Don Norman’s book and distinctly remember page you’ve included above. The thing is, so many features of software are developed (that are never used) under the notions of: a) trying to anticipate what the user may want and b) thinking that “this feature seems really cool!” It seems to make sense, too – especially for those of us that love the next big thing.
Where I currently work, we use a development methodology based on Lean Manufacturing. One of the aspects of this methodology as that you don’t try to anticipate what the user may want – you build what they want – what is explicitly stated in the requirements and contact the user if there are any unclear notions. Permitting your architecture is well-designed, implementing new features later shouldn’t be a terribly daunting task (of course, building good software is never particularly easy, either).
I was discussing this with someone just last week who gave a fair analogy (in my opinion) – he related this to the idea of building a house: When building a house, you know what it is the family ultimately wants with the completed house. Now, assume that no where do the requirements talk about a doorbell. Do you think “Does the family really not want a doorbell? I suppose people could simply knock on the door…” If you’re not sure, don’t try to anticipate what you think they’d want based on how cool you think it is. You’re not your customer.
Anyway, this comment is too long, but you hit on something that I think is a commend trend in development.
More from author
I still prefer desktop applications wherever possible. Even with all the AJAX and Web 2.0 trimmings, a browser is still a poor platform for applications. Online apps just lack that snappy, fluid feel. I’m also not a big fan of placing all my private data on some corporate’s server. I hope Thunderbird continues to develop and I’m looking forward to v3.0
More from author
wow, when i saw the title of the post and then saw the head image i thought something new and great was out but its just a bullshit campaign to get people onto thunderbird!
IMHO mac users should just use mail if they need a client and windows users should go Thunderbird in non exchange server environments and those that like web apps should go google.
I was a long user and advocator of Apple Mail but in the last month I’ve been happier using my web interface for all my mail. Quicker, simpler and all through a single interface.
More from author
Personally, I’m in no rush to convert to web versions of everything. I have yet to find a webmail system that behaves the way I, the user, want it to. I don’t live and die by my internet connections, and I don’t want to have to worry about some storage limit — large as it is — imposed by someone else’s server.
This goes for many of the other applications, too. I realize that email is archived and available for retrieval, but what I do in my word processor and my spreadsheet program are nobody’s business unless I decide they are, and I don’t want them stored somewhere out of my control.
Don’t forget that many of these online applications are also trying to offer offline accessibility for your data. Mozilla already has the offline version of their application to start with as a base, and from the information they provide on the site, it seem like they are well aware of the need for an online/remote accessibility. They are just getting to the same end point from the opposite end, not necessarily the wrong way.
Boy Paul, i follow your blog for over a year now, and I’m really pleased you feel that going webtop is the future!
Right now, I use gmail, calendar, reader, documents, blogspot and mediawiki (on a server @work). I also like sharing my pdfs on scribd, my presentations on slideshare, my photos on picasa, my pet projects code on google code, and my misc files on the box.net and my code snippets on refactormycode. I don’t even listen to my own music: I compile playlists (xspf format) on seeqpod.
Darn, give me a web based code text editor and some web-based debugging tools, and I’m there! (disclosure: I’m not a professional programmer).
However, I do feel kindof that the web-browsers really don’t follow that lead seriously. FF is great because of extensions (google sync, delicious sync), though Opera is cooler and faster. And yet, none of them really try to make their platform more OS-like… I don’t go for Macs, cuz, well, Macs are more expensive and all I really need is a browser and a command line to open an ssh connection. (I got Ubuntu on my personal desktop).
Right now, I’m looking for a smooth way to ubiquitously keep in sync my phone contacts with my mail contacts (I’m waiting on google contacts to come forward, and, just as well, openID could really take-off on the way) …
Client side mail clients would be relevant if gmail web interface wasn’t so cool! It simply works better than thunderbird AND I don’t have to care which computer I’m connecting from. Docs and spreadsheets still have some way to go, but they’re getting there.
I hate when I install FF in a new machine and I need to reinstall all the same-ol batch of extensions. One thing I think FF is missing is a web-server that stores your browser’s session preferences AND manages your extensions. In fact connecting to FF or any browser should open your session stored in some remote server (google browser sync tries to do that, but it’s limited cuz it doesn’t saves the preferences, the extesions, nor the skin, nor the look and feel of the browser customization)
Ok, I don’t freak out much about privacy nor security. I also don’t mind going public. I believe in freedom, freedom of speech, etc… When you’re solid about your beliefs, nothing can harm you. And if “they” do try to harm you, then it’s time to take a stand, start a revolution, make life worth living!
Finally, the 200$ desktop guys, from Everex, are a real open window to the future, in my opinion. Of course, none of these apps are new to you, Paul, since is through you that I got to know them in the first place (like 80% of them).
Cheers from Lisbon, and keep your posts comin’!
More from author
This shouldn’t be an either/or thing: I read this post in NetNewsWire (and am writing this comment there) because it’s far better than any of the web readers. But it syncs with the “cloud”, so I can keep FeedBurner on PC in sync, and check it via the web from any computer/iPhone.
Same with email: Entourage at home, Gmail interface everywhere else.
This is what we need to win: proper desktop apps that sync properly to web interfaces. Web-only–
More from author
I still prefer IMAP access, having my browser, Opera, being my client of choice. An application-based mail client is nearly instantaneous for searching, switching between messages, and whatever else needs to be done with the mail.
It also allows the reading of mail in the extremely rare case of not having an Internet connection. (The same goes for feed readers; you can still have something to read when you’re on a plane)
More from author
Since moving to Australia (and suffering a severe Internet-disconnect for 40 days) I’ve embraced web-Gmail and shunned desktop-Outlook out of necessity. A full-on conversion may be in the works for my emailing future.
More from author
Paul,
Webapps have come a long way, but at least for me I still prefer desktop applications. Secondly I think you have underestimated just how many people have broadband, even in the slowest form. I live in an area of 300,000 people….we have broadband nearly everywhere. However many relatives live about 45 mins from me in an area of about 50,000. They have very little broadband at all, and if they do its very expensive. Until broadband is cheap, and more massly deployed webapps will never be as useful as a desktop app. On another note as good as Gmail and other webmail has become, I still haven’t found one I like enough to throw out mail.app