Calling it a "free and open channel" when 80% of consumers are on Microsoft/Google addresses that control who can deliver e-mail is laughable. It's dead, Jim.

▲

urbandw311er 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fair point - I meant free in the sense that the protocol is open. I didn’t mean that it’s not under threat.

▲

stephbook 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You seem to miss the point WHY customers go there. I, for one, switched when I realized Google filters spam effectively.

	▲	theK 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That WHY seems to only address a very small slice of the market. Some other WHYs I've encountered - it was a way to outsource the mail server administration and already free in our corporate package Which is pretty much all I have from the corporate side. On the personal or small business side its most often - I don't really care that much about running my own stuff - I needed a personal email address All these are valid reasons/motivations but none explicitly argue that email messaging should become proprietary.