Giving FastMail Credit

[gdg]

Jeremy, Rob, and all the others at FM, I know you guys read the stuff (at least, some of it ) we put on these forums, and it has been on my mind that some of us, especially myself, have been quite rough on FM regarding not having any real response as of yet in regard to increasing mail storage or bandwidth resources for the users of FM. I just want to say that I (we) hope you would not take it personally, because it has nothing to do with any of you personally. It would be difficult not to take it personally, since FM is your "baby" and you've been taking care of it for many years.

FastMail, as a service, is an excellent service, and most users of it would not want to stop using it. The features are exceptional - you've done a great job in the development, and I'm sure you will continue to do a wonderful job in the future. I know the service is likely to survive all of this because of the way you guys have handled it in the past.

This is not to say the issues that have been brought up recently are going to just drop by the wayside in my mind, nor I'm sure in many others minds. There is just a certain amount of impatience on the part of many of us when we see all of these other services clamoring to advance in these areas, while FM appears to be standing still...and some statements have indicated FM may continue to stand still.

In my mind, email is growing into more than it used to be, and like other computer-related products or services, the email industry has to have increases in resources for the individual user to accommodate this. I really don't believe the Gigabyte email trend is all hype like so many have posted. It only brings to mind things like 14.4kbps modems, 500mb hard drives, etc...things that make one think where we used to be...and see how far we've come in only a few years...and email can't be much different, IMO. No, most of us don't need that much space or bandwidth (I don't actually use nearly all I have...though I've been unpleasantly shocked regarding the bandwidth part before because of some large emails I've received...and you get charged for receiving it, looking at it, transferring it to your hard drive if you wanted, etc...it was not the normal email usage, though). Most here that have asked for increases in those things would not really use more than a small percentage of it...right now...but no one knows how fast things may change...and you never know what surprises you may find in the inbox...so I guess it all comes down to peace of mind.

Anyway, I had no intention for this to be as long as it is, but I wanted to get this main point across...we (I'm assuming most feel this way) have no wish for you to feel any of it has been a personal attack, and we do love the service...great features and all.

[JeffK]

I give Fastmail credit for giving me patience!!

No seriously, I really enjoy my fastmail connection and look forward to the well considered response to recent developments.

I happen to like the fastmail feature set, interface and functionality and can't see myself using anything else for my primary email at this stage. But one man's meat... of course.

Jeff

(I do use gmail. It's necessary to give away invites.)

[hunter]

I agree with the positive credits for FM. Also I really appreciate Rob & Jeremy (FM) attitude towards their customer, that is they allow us to give feedback, cristicism and the best of it, they (FM) did listen/read and respond/give their voices to us!

I will keep my gmail account to receive huge email attachments. Although as I've posted before, I do need more FM space And I believe FM will provide this sooner or later.. not to mention some more additional new features

FM does provide good service and features.

[DJF]

Ok, my .02. Jeremy and Rob will make the best decision that they feel will keep FM strong. I believe that the problem is "piece of mind" as stated before. With all the recent changes so quickly, it just has us a bit stirred up. Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying that things couldn't benefit from change; that's always been how the web worked. Jeremy and Rob have always been very fair in this aspect. As mentioned before, they offered 10 when others offered 4 and 2 (namely Yahoo and Hotmail).

My feeling is this. I won't be making any major changes because I really like what FM has matured to. I, along with many others will be keeping an eye on how things settle though -- it's really an interesting time because these changes have been made by such names like Yahoo! and Google.

--
DJF

[janniklindquist]

FM certainly deserves a *lot* of credit. As far as I can tell the fastest and most wide-ranging development in recent e-mail history has been happening at the FM-company. I think they can afford to slow down a little to gain an overview before they make their next move and I wish them the best of luck with that move :-)

[gdg]

Originally posted by JeffK
I give Fastmail credit for giving me patience!!

No seriously, I really enjoy my fastmail connection and look forward to the well considered response to recent developments.

I happen to like the fastmail feature set, interface and functionality and can't see myself using anything else for my primary email at this stage. But one man's meat... of course.

Jeff

(I do use gmail. It's necessary to give away invites.)

If you have an FM account, especially one that is at least a member level, and you've used it to any extent, it would make it very difficult to just stop using it...at least as long as FM is in business (which I think will be the case for an indefinite future), and as long as they keep at least the member accounts. I've wondered how it would be if they would:

• Leave the free account with something like 50mb of space and 100mb of bandwidth.
• Have the member accounts at about 100mb space and 200mb bw - to better match Yahoo! free accounts.
• Full accounts at about 500mb space and 1gb of bw
• Enhanced accounts at 1gb of space and 2gb of bw

Something that is easy to understand the steps to different accounts...other than the features part.
--
David

[curious]

Originally posted by gdgrph

• Leave the free account with something like 50mb of space and 100mb of bandwidth.
• Have the member accounts at about 100mb space and 200mb bw - to better match Yahoo! free accounts.

Why does FM have to match Yahoo's free storage at the Guest or Member levels? Both FM levels offer important features that Yahoo's free service does not: some degree of offline access (major feature!!) and no advertizing (at present). I understand the push to increase storage and bandwidth at the Full & Enhanced levels, but the rationale seems a bit weak at the Guest or Member levels. Am I missing something?

[gdg]

Originally posted by curious
Why does FM have to match Yahoo's free storage at the Guest or Member levels? Both FM levels offer important features that Yahoo's free service does not: some degree of offline access (major feature!!) and no advertizing (at present). I understand the push to increase storage and bandwidth at the Full & Enhanced levels, but the rationale seems a bit weak at the Guest or Member levels. Am I missing something?

50mb at free does not match Yahoo's free offering, though FM used to have 2.5x the space of Yahoo. Only the 100mb for members (who have paid money) matches Yahoo's free service (for which you pay nothing and have unlimited bw). There is no way to judge what is exactly equivalent, but with both levels you still get less possible usage than you could get out of Yahoo. Yahoo isn't going to tell you "ok...you've reached your limit for this month...pay up if you want to send or receive any more email." Even though there are more features that you get with FM, there is still no way that is going to cause most people to make the mental leap that it may be better to use FM, even paying a one-time fee for member - because the most important feature is to be able to use your email as much as you need to use it.

--
David

[beeboy]

Fastmail is an innovative company.
Fastmail has always been at least one step ahead of its competitors.
I'm looking forward to seeing how Fastmail will keep ahead of the pack.

[curious]

Originally posted by gdgrph
50mb at free does not match Yahoo's free offering, though FM used to have 2.5x the space of Yahoo.

There's no chance that FM is going to offer 250 MB for Guests or Members. Nor should they (if they want to stay in business).

Only the 100mb for members (who have paid money) matches Yahoo's free service (for which you pay nothing and have unlimited bw).

Members pay a modest one-time fee, and unlike Yahoo's free service, Members get offline support and no ads. I think those two features are worth quite a lot. To my mind, they have a lot more value than extra MBs.

When you buy cellphone service, do you tell Provider A that they must offer more minutes in their national plan because Provider B has a gazillion minutes in their regional plan? You're comparing apples to oranges IMO. FM's Member level offers services that Yahoo's free service does not, and vice-versa. Seems to me that's pretty standard in most markets.

I'm not going to object if FM chooses to upgrade their Member account. I just don't understand all the pressure that folks are putting on FM to upgrade the Guest and Member levels.

Even though there are more features that you get with FM, there is still no way that is going to cause most people to make the mental leap that it may be better to use FM, even paying a one-time fee for member

That depends a great deal on how FM is marketed. They've got to make people understand what makes them different. If FM and Yahoo offered the same set of features, why would you choose some small company halfway around the world? (assuming for the moment that we're talking about the U.S. market) I hope you and I can agree that FM could (and should) do a better job of making it clear how they're different from their competitors -- why they're worth the extra buck.

because the most important feature is to be able to use your email as much as you need to use it.

Exactly, except that you and I define usage differently. You're restricting it to the # of messages you can send and receive. I'm more interested in being able to manage my email offline. You're right that MBs are worth a lot, and FM needs to do something so their upper paid levels don't pale in comparison to the competition, but for the lower levels, I think you seriously underestimate the market value of offline access. Broadband access is great, but what good is it when you're not at home?

[BetaTester]

Originally posted by gdgrph

• Leave the free account with something like 50mb of space and 100mb of bandwidth.
• Have the member accounts at about 100mb space and 200mb bw - to better match Yahoo! free accounts.
• Full accounts at about 500mb space and 1gb of bw
• Enhanced accounts at 1gb of space and 2gb of bw

--
David

I kinda agree, but i really think FM would let Guest level as a 30-day trial or something like that... just like runbox.
This way they can continue atracting new users who, if the service suits their needs, have to become paid users sooner than later...
The member account can't be comparable to free services of yahoo, since to use the *free* account from yahoo you accept to turn your monitor into an advertising wall or something like that, and member accounts in FM are supossed to be ad-free.
I think the same features you suggested for guest accounts must remain in the member account, alwas one pay off, ad-free.
Others levels i completely agree.

I also think is VERY IMPORTANT to hear the level of commitment from FM to mantain the guest and member levels, since those users are worried about the speculation around the elimination of these levels. Speculations that worries people already paid *for a one-pay-off lifetime account* have their rights too.

[gdg]

Originally posted by curious
There's no chance that FM is going to offer 250 MB for Guests or Members. Nor should they (if they want to stay in business).

I really don't think even that would put them out of business, but I really only suggested 50mb.

Members pay a modest one-time fee, and unlike Yahoo's free service, Members get offline support and no ads. I think those two features are worth quite a lot. To my mind, they have a lot more value than extra MBs.

To my mind, the extra mb's at Yahoo are worth more than offline support...the ads are irritating, but I could possibly put up with it if I wanted to have unlimited bandwidth also.

When you buy cellphone service, do you tell Provider A that they must offer more minutes in their national plan because Provider B has a gazillion minutes in their regional plan? You're comparing apples to oranges IMO. FM's Member level offers services that Yahoo's free service does not, and vice-versa. Seems to me that's pretty standard in most markets.

I agree, and I did essentially say there was no hard comparison that could be made. It's all personal preference.

I'm not going to object if FM chooses to upgrade their Member account. I just don't understand all the pressure that folks are putting on FM to upgrade the Guest and Member levels.

There really is no pressure...I like the FM service, and so do most people here on these forums. I'm just trying to be realistic - there is a perception now that FM is highly restrictive in some areas - areas that are more important to more people, IMO, than offline access.

That depends a great deal on how FM is marketed. They've got to make people understand what makes them different. If FM and Yahoo offered the same set of features, why would you choose some small company halfway around the world? (assuming for the moment that we're talking about the U.S. market) I hope you and I can agree that FM could (and should) do a better job of making it clear how they're different from their competitors -- why they're worth the extra buck.

Definitely agree.

Exactly, except that you and I define usage differently. You're restricting it to the # of messages you can send and receive. I'm more interested in being able to manage my email offline. You're right that MBs are worth a lot, and FM needs to do something so their upper paid levels don't pale in comparison to the competition, but for the lower levels, I think you seriously underestimate the market value of offline access. Broadband access is great, but what good is it when you're not at home?

I realize offline access is important to many, but I also realize it's not that important to me, nor to most people I know. That is just personal preference, but I don't know anyone that prefers to have less storage or bandwidth. MBs are worth alot, but they don't cost alot, and as for the lower levels...you have to give them enough to attract them in the face of everything that is being offered for free now...yes, marketing is a biggie. When I'm not at home, that is the time when I'm least interested in offline access...because I have the email online...accessible from anywhere I can have an internet connection...broadband or dialup.

--
David

[gdg]

Originally posted by BetaTester
I kinda agree, but i really think FM would let Guest level as a 30-day trial or something like that... just like runbox.
This way they can continue atracting new users who, if the service suits their needs, have to become paid users sooner than later...
The member account can't be comparable to free services of yahoo, since to use the *free* account from yahoo you accept to turn your monitor into an advertising wall or something like that, and member accounts in FM are supossed to be ad-free.
I think the same features you suggested for guest accounts must remain in the member account, alwas one pay off, ad-free.
Others levels i completely agree.

I also think is VERY IMPORTANT to hear the level of commitment from FM to mantain the guest and member levels, since those users are worried about the speculation around the elimination of these levels. Speculations that worries people already paid *for a one-pay-off lifetime account* have their rights too.

I do think eliminating the free level, not allowing further member signups...supporting the member accounts that are already in place and keeping up with the times, and starting just a trial would be a great option also for FM. That way there would not be such a burden from non-paying or one-time paying customers. This is what the other premium services do, so I'm not sure why FM absolutely has to rely on the lower levels for upgrades to the full or enhanced services.
--
David

[Jim44224]

Does anyone know of anyone who's managed 1GB of e-mail via a web interface? And to think that an account bandwidth limit is going to be restrictive on those who have a dialup internet connection seems ludicrous, too.

Of course, anyone who's sitting on an airplane or train is going to find zero value in Yahoo's free service regardless of their 100MB offer. To me, a web interface like the one Yahoo uses just looks like a Fisher Price version of the real thing. Count me in the group of those who think that there's no comparable substitute for a real e-mail client loaded on your computer.

Also, why the continued conversation about eliminating Guest accounts? Jeremy has said several times that they are good for business. I suspect Yahoo and Hotamail believe that free accounts are good for their businesses, too.

[fhapgood]

Originally posted by curious
Why does FM have to match Yahoo's free storage at the Guest or Member levels?

Right. There is an important point here that everyone who has been calling for FM to get down in the dirt and play the giveaway game keeps missing: since it doesn't cost anything to get an ad-supported account, there is no reason for Fastmail to try to imitate them. For instance, I used to whale away on Fastmail for not have cross-folder searching. But now that I have a Gmail account I don't need it! I forward my mail queue into both accounts and use the strengths of one to offset the weaknesses of the other. I dump everything into a single archive in Gmail and use searching and labels to work with that when I need to, and file stuff away in folders on Fastmail, which system has its advantages too. I don't need or want the systems to resemble each other. Right now they complement each other perfectly, and that's how it should be.