[HN Gopher] Mozilla launching "Thundermail" email service to tak...
___________________________________________________________________
Mozilla launching "Thundermail" email service to take on Gmail,
Microsoft 365
Author : bentobean
Score : 143 points
Date : 2025-04-02 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techradar.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techradar.com)
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| This is the best news I've heard of Mozilla in a long time.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Yes, and maybe timely with many Countries looking to wean
| themselves off US based.
|
| I wonder if this service can be segregated by region ?
|
| For example, can people in Europe use a service that is fully
| based in Europe.
| KomoD wrote:
| You know Mozilla is American right? There's no way for it to
| be "fully based in Europe" when Mozilla runs it.
| jmclnx wrote:
| Yes, but I would think there could be multiple services and
| storage.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Something like Kolab Now, you mean?
| basisword wrote:
| >> For example, can people in Europe use a service that is
| fully based in Europe.
|
| As long as it's still owned by Mozilla it's subject to the
| whims of the US government.
|
| There are already many good European mail services (e.g.
| Proton Mail).
| sfRattan wrote:
| I'm cautiously optimistic. It's certainly the most realistic
| business plan their leadership has put forward in a long time.
|
| And a Mozilla/Thunderbird based email service is well timed.
| Microsoft's upgrade (read: downgrade) of the newest version of
| Outlook, making it a glorified web app, has pissed of a lot of
| users who aren't the sort to browse hacker spaces but do have
| to use serious email and calendaring every day for their work.
|
| Even if those folks don't see Thunderbird as an alternative to
| what Outlook/Exchange was, it'll absolutely be an alternative
| to what Microsoft is turning Outlook into... [1][2][3]
|
| And there's something devilishly funny about the fact that,
| because DDG uses Bing on the backend, when I search for
| articles to cite... Everything that comes up trashing the new
| Outlook is from MSN.
|
| [1]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-new-outlook-
| fo...
|
| [2]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/windows-11-takes-
| small-...
|
| [3]: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/even-microsoft-
| s-a...
| zie wrote:
| I thought MSN was not owned by MS anymore, but turns out I
| was wrong. It's MSNBC that MS divested ownership in. MSN is
| still 100% owned by MS.
|
| At least they aren't filtering out bad MS news on MSN I
| guess.
| devwastaken wrote:
| i would not get an email for a domain that will be up for sale in
| 10 years. mozilla is not a sustainable org and has lost its core
| principles. Mozilla best serves people by shutting down and
| letting younger and better orgs replace it.
| Loudergood wrote:
| Once I can bring my own domain, I'll be more interested.
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| Why does this matter?
|
| I can't pick my own domain when using Gmail, and still works
| just fine.
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| It matters because on your own domain you control the MX
| records (Mail eXchange) servers.
|
| So, if Mozilla Thundermail were to disappear, you can
| switch servers on the MX record to another email provider
| with little downtime if done correctly.
|
| You also become the sovereign of your email. Should your
| Google account get banned (a news like these hit HN once a
| month), you are left to start over changing email address
| in every service you use.
|
| Not to mention dead accesses to SSO, because the Google
| account would be inaccesible by then.
| progman32 wrote:
| Can't speak for op, but for me it's a question of control.
| If this service ends up closing or otherwise loses me as a
| customer, I have to update every single contact and account
| before I can stop using it. That's not practical. If I
| bring my own domain, I can switch providers much more
| easily.
|
| Some people might be ok with losing contact with the long
| tail after an email provider migration, but I'm not one of
| those people.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| Owning the domain your email address uses gives you a
| greater degree of ownership over that email address and
| makes you service provider agnostic.
|
| Using an @gmail.com address for example, if you decide to
| move to another service provider at some point or
| especially if your Google account gets banned, you're stuck
| manually migrating over however many things you have
| attached to your address (some of which may not be easy or
| possible without access to the original address).
|
| In contrast, if your address is on a domain you own, the
| provider becomes moot. It doesn't matter if you migrate or
| get banned, you still have your email address, and after a
| small blip between providers all is as it was.
| RegW wrote:
| > I can't pick my own domain when using Gmail, and still
| works just fine.
|
| I do. I've used my own domain with GMail for many years. I
| moved it there from another provider when Google were
| giving such things away for free to beta users.
|
| Perhaps I should move on again and avoid the big data
| kleptomania.
| xandrius wrote:
| Mozilla is a no-profit foundation, not a company which needs to
| be sustainable or be profitable.
|
| I agree Mozilla lost its way but I would still hope in them
| improving over time than trusting yet another for-profit to
| serve us in the long-term.
| Pharaoh2 wrote:
| NPOs still need to be financially sustainable/viable. They
| still need to pay their employees and pay their vendors.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I think you and GP are saying the same(-ish) thing. A non-
| profit which has no money cannot continue, and so if it
| spends more than it takes in then eventually it will have
| to stop. This may be ok if it's part of the mission, or if
| they're hoping that a big donation randomly shows up. A
| normal business whose mission is to make money hasn't got
| those options.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| I might be misunderstanding the org chart but Thunderbird is
| operated by MZLA Technologies Corporation, which is for-
| profit (although I guess it's owned by the non profit
| Mozilla, similar to how openai was?)
| x0x0 wrote:
| Sure, but this sort of thing (email, plus likely mostly
| shitty calendaring and contacts) is a very ok business. The
| fastmail people make a fine living at it (their product is as
| good as anything outside gmail. If you haven't, you should
| try it! I'm a happy decade-long customer). But it's not the
| sort of business that supports the massive employee count
| that Mozilla has.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| sounds more like google to me
| mjrpes wrote:
| They are using stalwart, another open source product, for the
| backend stack. So you should be able to host your own server
| instance with custom domain when it gets built out. Stalwart
| itself just received a European funding grant to build out the
| features needed. From Thunderbird announcement:
|
| > Thundermail is an email service. We want to provide email
| accounts to those that love Thunderbird, and we believe that we
| are capable of providing a better service than the other
| providers out there, that aligns with our values. We have been
| experimenting with this for a while now and are using Stalwart
| as the software stack we are building upon. We have been
| working with the Stalwart maintainer to improve its
| capabilities (for instance, we have pushed hard on calendar and
| contacts being a core piece of the stack).
|
| https://thunderbird.topicbox.com/groups/planning/T437cd854af...
|
| https://stalw.art/blog/nlnet-grant-collaboration
| Y_Y wrote:
| > we have pushed hard on calendar and contacts being a core
| piece of the stack
|
| Imagine maintaining a useful piece of FOSS and then Mozilla
| shows up and "pushes hard" for some feature they want for a
| service that's missed the boat by a decade and doesn't even
| elicit much hope from loyal users (including myself).
| Avamander wrote:
| That's a bit negative. There are plenty of people that want
| a full OSS alternative to Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo and others.
| That includes calendar and contacts.
| mjrpes wrote:
| Stalwart is unique I think. The whole thing was built by
| essentially one developer in rust, and it's quite amazing
| how he has done it in just a few years. He's expressed
| interest in expanding the software beyond email in the
| past, and contacts/calendar/files shouldn't be too hard of
| a challenge for him.
| stirlo wrote:
| https://thundermail.com
|
| Site is here with waitlist signup. It's also titled "For Those
| Who Know" and says: >> status beta_signup.is_open=true so perhaps
| theres a CLI or hidden way to signup immediately?
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| There's an input field for an email address below that block
| for me
| Kirby64 wrote:
| I had to disable uBlock Origin for that to show up.
| mystraline wrote:
| Turns out, in Firefox mobile, the email submission block
| isn't present.
|
| I had to open Chrome Mobile to see it.
|
| I hope this, err, 'oversight' isn't indicative of the quality
| of using Mozilla products.
| riquito wrote:
| Using Firefox mobile too, it's visible. Could be one of
| your extensions
| mystraline wrote:
| Probably Ublock Origin, which is why I use FF mobile.
| Larrikin wrote:
| It is just you if its not appearing.
|
| I'm using Ad Nauseum which is just UBO but improved with
| added features and it appears just fine.
| stirlo wrote:
| Yep. You might need to disable Adblock to have it appear.
|
| I was still hoping for something more than a simple email
| waitlist signup however. But I didn't find anything obvious
| hidden in the page that would allow immediate signup
| mvdtnz wrote:
| That is without a doubt the worst landing page I have ever
| seen.
| munchler wrote:
| I've tried to use Thunderbird multiple times over the years, but
| I always end up with a corrupted mailbox after a week or two, so
| I go back to Outlook. Is TB finally reliable enough to try again?
| I'd love to ditch Outlook, but I don't want to be a sucker.
|
| Update: OK, I'm trying it again.
| vasachi wrote:
| My coworker uses thunderbird since time immemorial, and I don't
| think it ever corrupted his mailbox.
| spacechild1 wrote:
| I have been using Thunderbird myself for years and never had
| any such problems.
| timbit42 wrote:
| I've used Thunderbird for years and know half a dozen other
| people using it, including one who has folders with tens of
| thousands of emails, and have never heard of any data
| corruption.
| Avamander wrote:
| The only issue with "large" mailboxes is that Thunderbird
| tends to become really slow. But this issue plagues other
| desktop clients as well.
|
| I would love to find an actually performant email client. It
| shouldn't take like seconds to sort like 100 000 emails. It's
| a puny number. The time it takes one can read all the emails
| from disk a thousand times, it's sad.
| rendx wrote:
| Hate to admit but Apple Mail is the only one I know that
| has fast (albeit simple) local search even for large
| mailboxes.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| On Mac I've found MailMate to be excellent in this regard.
| Avamander wrote:
| I'll check it out, thanks!
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I have used Thunderbird for over a decade.
|
| I have never seen any corruption, but if I have threading on,
| emails get attached to the wrong thread quite often. It's
| quite annoying.
| Remnant44 wrote:
| Thunderbird is my daily driver email client for all my business
| email for over a decade.
|
| I've never had a single corruption problem in that time, with
| probably hundreds of thousands of emails. Take that for what
| its worth.
|
| The only complaint I've ever had is when they redid their UI a
| year or two ago it got unbearably slow - which improved over
| the next few iterations until its now fine again.
| brunoqc wrote:
| Mozilla, let me directly fund Firefox instead please.
| mentalgear wrote:
| Rooting for mozilla and their privacy-focused services. Been
| using the email-masking feature (generate forward email
| addresses) for a while and really like it.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Rooting for mozilla and their privacy-focused services. Been
| using the email-masking feature (generate forward email
| addresses) for a while and really like it.
|
| I don't know how the privacy of this one will shake out, but
| the privacy focus on the browser includes allowing them to
| share your data, so that makes me way less enthusiastic about
| continuing my investment in their ecosystem.
| ice3 wrote:
| i wonder what the price will be and if it supports custom domains
| sylens wrote:
| I hope this service will use JMAP and push the Thunderbird client
| itself to adopt it
| cycomanic wrote:
| Yes! I'm a fastmail user and every couple of months I do a
| survey of JMAP support and come back disappointed.
|
| Speaking about thunderbird, I liked their UI redesign, but it
| seems they are taking away quite a bit of plugin capabilities,
| e.g. there used to be the possibility to run firenvim (a plugin
| to run neovim in the compose window), but that's not possible
| anymore.
| adduc wrote:
| > The final launch will be Thundermail, an email hosting
| service using the open-source Stalwart stack. Users will be
| able to pick between thundermail.com and tb.pro domains.
|
| If the article is correct, Thundermail will be built using
| Stalwart[1], which appears to support JMAP
|
| [1]: https://stalw.art/
| hs86 wrote:
| Is it just JMAP, or why does Fastmail's web app feel so fast? I
| have moved away from all locally running mail apps to Fastmail
| and even fetch/alias all my other mail accounts to them because
| of the much better experience.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43554197
| n42 wrote:
| is there a future where Mozilla buys Kagi and becomes the privacy
| Google?
| technocratius wrote:
| Just use Proton
| Avamander wrote:
| Proton says they care about security and privacy but at the
| same time makes it impossible to use your own keys or
| properly export the original emails from your inbox. I really
| can't take this suggestion seriously.
| kowabungalow wrote:
| That's not a good argument. The easiest way to undermine
| security of everyone is to allow portability of keys
| features. Look for example at where Signal fails and for no
| benefit to a normal user.
| Avamander wrote:
| Current email encryption schemes provide no forward
| security, it's nothing like Signal. Key management has to
| work totally different.
|
| You're also wrong in the aspect that it would undermine
| something, you can absolutely export keys from
| Protonmail, you just can't use your own keys properly.
| You can't remove all the keys they have generated, you
| can't use your own client with your own keys, the bridge
| literally mucks it up. The defaults can be what they are,
| it's not mutually exclusive in any way.
|
| In the end this restriction undermines the security and
| privacy for everyone that want to use secure hardware
| storage. Which is absolutely insane for a service that
| boasts about these things.
| kowabungalow wrote:
| I didn't critique their security model, I said you
| wanting greater convenience to exfiltrate keys and
| documents, even if its to a system that is more secure
| for you, is not arguing for better security and privacy
| in their product.
| Avamander wrote:
| Your comment makes no sense. You can already export all
| the keys Protonmail generates (which I don't want to use
| and neither should I be forced to use). Not allowing the
| user to use their own provides absolutely no resistance
| to any kind of exfiltration.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I certainly hope not. I like Kagi and I don't want Mozilla
| messing with it.
| ttoinou wrote:
| Make thunderbird supports a local database with 100k emails with
| proper search ! Make us pay for that optimization if needed.
| Email is a big tool of communication for all businesses, Pros who
| make money daily through emails need to handle tons of emails,
| we're ready to pay for that
| Avamander wrote:
| I mentioned the same problem in one other subthread as well.
| Current hardware is certainly performant enough not to become
| this sluggish at just 100 000 or so emails. There's actually no
| reason it shouldn't work well with say a million emails in one
| inbox.
| xnx wrote:
| I haven't used Thunderbird in a long time, but regularly used
| Outlook with multi-gigabye .pst files. Surely sqlite on an
| SSD would be up to the task of handling at least million
| emails of average size.
| mmooss wrote:
| > Outlook with multi-gigabye .pst files
|
| What has been your experience? Mine in trying to use and
| support it is that Outlook is an Exchange client; PSTs are
| hacks to meet demand, though they work well enough in
| limited circumstances. Especially PSTs over a LAN
| connection are a disaster.
| xnx wrote:
| The Exchange server hardware was so underpowered (or the
| software so ill-designed for large mailboxes) that
| Exchange powered searches would fail, but ones run on the
| local pst would complete successfully (if slowly). This
| was on an HDD. SSD would be much faster.
| mmooss wrote:
| > This was on an HDD. SSD would be much faster.
|
| OT but is that right? SSDs have many advantages but
| sequential read isn't necessarily one of them. SSDs seek
| is much faster, but this is ~one file. Throughput can be
| much faster due to the better interfaces, but is
| throughput the bottleneck for this kind of search?
| xnx wrote:
| Good question. Property benchmarking would be required to
| know for sure. It's probably rare that a multi-gigabyte
| file would be contiguous on disk, so lots of seeking
| would probably be required anyway.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Tell that to apple mail. Makes no sense how an app seemingly
| unchanged since the tiger days when I started using it could
| still be as performant as it always was on far better
| hardware. In fact I frequently find it to be the culprit when
| I wonder what the hell could be spinning my fans on this m3
| pro just churning over the database.
|
| Iphone version is arguably worse because it also has
| performance issues but doesn't support inbox rules. Then
| again those inbox rules often fail to filter emails anyhow.
| isaachinman wrote:
| We're building what you want.
|
| https://marcoapp.io
| Avamander wrote:
| Your link does not work?
| isaachinman wrote:
| Apologies, on mobile. Fixed.
| mmooss wrote:
| I'd love it - email could use serious tools and refinement -
| but so many questions: Is it local or hosted? What is the
| story with privacy? Do you use an existing application (like
| a Thunderbird fork) or something you created?
|
| Can you / will you integrate other messaging such as SMS,
| even WhatsApp, etc.? RSS?
| corndoge wrote:
| It says "all platforms" but does not list Linux. Is Linux
| support planned?
| scosman wrote:
| How does it compare to Apple Mail? That's my reference local
| email client.
| Koffiepoeder wrote:
| I have a (non-published) plugin that I'm using that is capable
| of using elasticsearch for indexing & search from within
| Thunderbird. I never bothered publishing it, since I never
| really wanted to maintain it/build a business out of it. Would
| this be something you are interested in, potentially for a
| small fee?
| ttoinou wrote:
| It might not work for me for various reasons, but pay a fee
| to release the source code in the wild for anyone (me or
| others) to pick it up, yes why not ! Safer if you put a way
| to contact you on your profile
| RachelF wrote:
| Use Betterbird. They upgrade Thunderbird and fix bugs.
| miles wrote:
| > Make thunderbird supports a local database with 100k emails
| with proper search
|
| Currently working with a Thunderbird database which contains
| over 300,000 messages and search works quite reliably (once in
| a blue moon have to switch from "Search Messages..." to "Global
| Search"), though the emails are stored in Maildir format rather
| than the default mbox:
| https://tinyapps.org/blog/202207100700_thunderbird_mbox_to_m...
| .
| inetknght wrote:
| So... after the Mozilla/Firefox EULA and TOS fiasco... there's no
| way in Hell that I'd touch this.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| As far as I can glean, this is a "me" problem, but does anyone
| else find Thunderbird's search to be mostly-broken? I.e., will
| not find emails that should turn up in a query.
| climb_stealth wrote:
| It helps to sort the results by date rather than relevance.
| Relevance is the default and the results are all over the place
| and it does indeed feel utterly broken :)
| cycomanic wrote:
| I agree, the search is quite bad.
|
| The UI is bad and the results seem to be poor. I don't
| necessarily have the issue that emails are not in the results,
| but more that results are too numerous and the only way I can
| narrow down results is putting more constrains in the UI. What
| often happens for me is that I search using a several terms or
| some specific phrases and the search returns tons of results
| (does it just do an OR between words in the search) and I then
| end up clicking (why can't the time constraint be a slider?!)
| through different months (based on what I recall about the
| timeframe of the email) until I find the email.
|
| When I was using notmuch I recall results being much better.
|
| Another annoyance is that Thunderbird only seems to search
| locally, i.e. if I don't have some folders downloaded it will
| not do a server search as well as a local search (maybe there's
| a setting for it?)
| Avamander wrote:
| I run grep on Thunderbird's storage directory and it's
| significantly faster than anything Thunderbird itself attempts.
| (It also allows finding exact matches, fuzzy search without
| language "awareness" is disgusting to use.)
| mmooss wrote:
| That's kind of the point of the Unix text stream philosophy?
| TB stores as text, and then you can use the best text search
| tool you have.
|
| Do you use mbox or maildir, out of curiosity?
| Avamander wrote:
| > That's kind of the point of the Unix text stream
| philosophy? TB stores as text, and then you can use the
| best text search tool you have.
|
| To some extent, yes. Though emails are structured text and
| a bare string search is far from an optimal search
| strategy.
|
| > Do you use mbox or maildir, out of curiosity?
|
| Whatever the Thunderbird default is.
| mmooss wrote:
| Thanks and good point about the structured data.
|
| I ask about mbox (one file system file per Thunderbird
| folder - e.g., one file named Inbox containing all its
| messages) or maildir (one folder per TB folder,
| containing one file per message) because it affects
| search using outside tools that don't understand that
| folder structure.
|
| I'm wondering how efficient they are: When you search,
| does grep return an Inbox mbox file at a certain line
| number, or a maildir file?
| kayson wrote:
| I've been pretty happy with its search and have never had
| issues finding emails. The UI isn't great and theres a lot of
| cruft to filter through but it does work...
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| I have found that "Quick Filter Bar" is often much better at
| searching if you know which folder the email is in.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Sounds like Apple Mail so maybe no one gets it right.
| intellectronica wrote:
| Is this an April Fools leftover?..
| sandyarmstrong wrote:
| Gmail was also announced on April Fools'...
| timeon wrote:
| Where are the servers located?
| Y_Y wrote:
| > >> philosophy
|
| > open_source & privacy_focused & user_controlled
|
| Is their philosophy a bit string? Or maybe this simple mistake of
| using a bitwise AND is what's gotten Mozilla's mission so
| corrupted these last many years.
| gruez wrote:
| The article is pretty light on details so I'm going to ask: why
| should I get this compared to something like fastmail or
| protonmail? Does it at least have end to end encryption? Is this
| just going to be a case of Mozilla partnering with another
| service provider (eg. mullvad for mozilla vpn), slapping their
| logo on it, and collecting a royalty?
| pgt wrote:
| Never forget Mozilla's stance on deplatforming & censorship
| (since scrubbed from Mozilla's blog):
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210108215449/https://blog.mozi...
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this, I was completely unaware that this
| was Mozilla's stance. This is shocking and disappointing to me.
| DecentShoes wrote:
| Jesus Christ. Maybe I will give in and switch to Chrome.
| sunshine-o wrote:
| Unless they pull out something really cool and revolutionary this
| is probably just a fax machine.
|
| Outside of the corporate world email is almost a legacy protocol.
| Like phone numbers we have one because we need to but do not
| really use it that much anymore.
|
| I believe email was de facto replaced by WhatsApp, iMessage,
| Social media and OpenID almost 20 years ago.
|
| Just ask a gen Z or Alpha when was the last time he sent an
| email.
|
| Now they are gonna try to ride the wave of the Big bad tech
| escape but Proton has a 10 years lead here.
| mod50ack wrote:
| OpenID certainly hasn't replaced email. Young people still all
| need email to sign up for ~anything online - not to mention
| things like job/school applications or plenty of other real-
| world things.
|
| What email has become is an identifier and a receptacle for
| notices. It's not a social platform for young people. But it's
| very much a thing!
| evolve2k wrote:
| A few months ago I would have been excited and telling my
| friends. But no longer. I had long been an outspoken Firefox
| advocate in my city. Fix your trust issue.
|
| Trust once lost is not easily regained.
| mmooss wrote:
| That's not my point of view at all, and I have little issue
| with what happened and have no concern about Mozilla and
| privacy.
|
| The endless repetition of these comments is becoming spammy -
| they have nothing to say but the exact same thing again. We get
| it; you don't need to repeat it. It's like someone writing, at
| every opportunity, 'I don't trust Meta' and adding nothing
| more.
| olyjohn wrote:
| I probably say this too much too, but it feels like just a
| justification to keep using shiny Chrome. Even though the
| recent ToS fiasco basically had the same language as Chrome's
| ToS, and wasn't really as bad as everybody freaked out about.
| People still just find whatever excuse.
|
| Like fine if you like Chrome, just admit you love Chrome
| because it's shiny.
| mmooss wrote:
| I hope for the best but plan for the worst:
|
| I don't think people want to change email addresses very often.
| How do I know Mozilla will still be doing this in 5-10 years?
| (Edit: Others have pointed out that, if we can bring our own
| domains, technical users can retain their address. However, for
| non-technical users that's not an option.)
|
| Also, I'm not sure about charging a fee at the start (except for
| TB contributors) and providing a free tier later - reverse of the
| usual way of launching a product. Maybe this is a soft launch to
| shake out the bugs and build a little momentum, and you can pay
| if you want to take part?
|
| Mozilla could do something awesome here. I hate to say it, but
| here is a chance to start fresh and make big, legacy-breaking
| changes to Thunderbird. The new audience - which should become
| the vast majority if they are successful - won't care if it's not
| like the old Thunderbird (possibly unlike many on HN). Here is a
| chance to do something special and the mail client is all most
| users see or understand.
| fracus wrote:
| Do people still use Thunderbird client? I would guess 99% of
| people use their browser.
| ferfumarma wrote:
| I'm deeply skeptical as well.
|
| If firefox doesn't have enough compelling ideas and features in
| its primary domain of the browser, then how are they going to
| develop a new mail competency in such a complete way that they
| can take on gmail?
|
| Whether they succeed or fail, this will sap resources from the
| browser team. And it seems _overwhelmingly_ likely to fail.
| mdasen wrote:
| > I'm not sure about charging a fee at the start and providing
| a free tier later
|
| I think this is a smart move. Email isn't a platform where you
| need to conquer the world to be successful. Hey has been doing
| great business with an only-paid model. Might as well serve the
| paying customers first and build up revenue.
|
| Also, whenever you're launching something new, you generally
| need to limit onboarding. Google did it with Gmail, Bluesky did
| it with their service. You can't have a flood of 10 million new
| users all at once before you've had a chance to scale things.
| Seems reasonable to let paying users in first given that email
| doesn't have network lock-in effects.
|
| I think there is reasonable skepticism around how committed
| Mozilla is to this. However, I think that starting with the
| paid tiers is a smart move given that they'd have to limit
| signups initially anyway.
| palata wrote:
| > I don't think people want to change email addresses very
| often.
|
| You probably know this already, but people should have their
| own domain. Then they can change provider without changing the
| address.
| evolve2k wrote:
| A few months ago I would have been excited and telling my friends
| and community. But no longer. My long term endorsement is over.
|
| Trust once lost is not easily regained.
|
| Fix your trust issue.
| 9283409232 wrote:
| Mozilla should've been what Proton. A company that sells privacy
| focused services. They went off chasing too many geese and now
| they are panicking. I don't think I would trust this service at
| this point.
| varispeed wrote:
| Mozilla is American and with what's going in the world, we need a
| service like Gmail served by non-US entity.
|
| Many businesses are looking away from US based services.
|
| If Mozilla moved headquarters to Switzerland, UK or Norway, then
| maybe it would make sense.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-02 23:00 UTC)