GMail, 2004: "keep giving people more space forever", in stark contrast to Hotmail and all other providers who delete your data after a few months of inactivity.
GMail, 2013: "You can tell us what to do with your Gmail messages and data from several other Google services if your account becomes inactive for any reason", and only offers to safeguard your data for a year: "after three, six, nine or 12 months of inactivity". Sprinkled with some fear of digital privacy after your death, for good measure.
So as of today, the only difference between the old Hotmail policy and the new GMail, is whether that checkbox is ticked or not.
I'm willing to bet that feature will shortly by enabled by default.
Really? Really? Has Hacker News become this childish? I'm sorry, but this is getting a little out of hand. I know people are still upset about Reader's cancellation but come on.
If we're at the point where everyone just shits all over whatever Google does, regardless of whether it's a good thing or not, then that really doesn't say much about us as a community. If Google does bad things, let's point that out, but if, on the other hand, they come out with a product that is clearly of benefit to users, respects their wishes, and offers a feature that no other service providers do, then perhaps we should recognize that Google might have done something good for once.
I could say the same about being enamoured with Google's "Don't be evil" motto to the point as to disregard general management... and accusing me of being childish for recording predictions publically. But hey... if we can't have an adult debate on this entreprenerial forum, you might be right when you say it "doesn't say much about us as a community".
So, coming back to the topic at hand, no this is not "clearly of benefit to the user". If I want my succession to be handled properly, I'll take care of it myself. There's nothing good about breaking a promise they made when they opened the service; that's called bait-and-switch. And breaking promises, to me, is a cardinal sin.
Have they made it the default? I don't know. Will they? I know even less. Neither do you. So please, stay civil if you're going to defend them.
Or Google is just trying to solve a real problem (that few people think about until it's too late) for its users.
GMail is miniscule compared to YouTube. You really think Google is having so much trouble storing a bunch of text that they came up with this whole death justification to start deleting inactive accounts? Please.
In principle you'd be right, although Google/Youtube have never(?) made any promise about data retention. I've started to notice a number of older inactive links (say 5-10 years) have become stale, so I'd suspect they started to clean-up their database on that side.
GMail, 2013: "You can tell us what to do with your Gmail messages and data from several other Google services if your account becomes inactive for any reason", and only offers to safeguard your data for a year: "after three, six, nine or 12 months of inactivity". Sprinkled with some fear of digital privacy after your death, for good measure.
So as of today, the only difference between the old Hotmail policy and the new GMail, is whether that checkbox is ticked or not.
I'm willing to bet that feature will shortly by enabled by default.