The Android app is horrible btw. If I had to guess it’s just a desktop web page scaled down and packaged in an app.

As long as they can put on their website “We support open source!” who cares right?

It’s not about preference. It’s about what every single other email client does, including their own on different platforms, and this is even fixed in their upcoming beta of this same app.

I’m not sure why you would need to start an email from halfway down the page? I’m not sure I’m understanding you but I feel like I’m on the verge of having my mind blown about how the other half write emails 🤣 Please explain further, I’m genuinely curious!

For me, I write things from top to bottom. If I want to do a later paragraph then I will simply write it in, then go back to the top and hit enter to create a new line

Thank you! The stupid thing is I’m literally enrolled in the beta program through the Google Play store… apparently that’s the fake beta and you have to know this link for the real beta. I can confirm this issue does not exist on the “real” beta. You just saved me a lot of time.

but if they ever change it, it’ll break a number of fortune 500 companies who rely on this behaviour 🤣

Yes I would say it’s most likely just a technical problem, I just found it funny they didn’t come right out and say that.

My first thought was along those same lines but I do have both my personal signature and the mobile signature disabled in the settings.

I have both signature settings turned off and there’s several blank lines.

I’m not sure what your comment has to do with mine because I wasn’t discussing anything in the article, simply replying to someone else’s comment.

To be clear I understand that the article was incorrect, and I had my suspicions when I first saw it too (which I posted in another comment).

My comment is in reference to Google Search’s general degradation of user experience and quality of search results over the many years. Sponsored results that are hard for the average people to notice are sponsored, and they take up half the screen. SEO spam, quora spam, specific searches returning general results, etc. There is still a wealth of organic and original content out there. I just never find it through search.

I’d be surprised if anyone did! I have asked them what the use case for this is and will reply back if they answer.

Well, the humour behind “it’s a feature, not a bug!” has to come from somewhere and it seems your company/the company you work for is one of the players contributing to it :P

Exactly!

In this case, if this is truly a feature and there are people with actual use cases for it (please let me know!) then make it an option, and not a default one.

IMO call a bug a bug. Even if they were to say “yes this is a known issue, we’re aware of it but don’t know when we will be able to work on it” would be 100x better. The client is open source and I wouldn’t mind taking a look at it myself and potentially submitting a pull request.

However, saying “yes this is the expected behaviour” coupled with one closed pull request where someone implemented a “mark all as read” button (clearly a non-trivial amount of work) but closed the request months later with this comment doesn’t make me too eager:

There’s another where someone literally took the vector image that they use for their icon and created a PR to support Android 13 themed icons. After half a year someone rejected it due to only the design team being allowed to make design changes.

For context, this is the “feature”:

Most people don’t understand how bad Google has become. It’s like not noticing how tall you’ve grown until your grandmother points it out.

My interpretation was this + in terms of the actual “sponsored” results work by matching “kids clothing” with advertisers who match for that term, and Google “changing” it into “$brand_name kids clothing” which seems entirely obvious when spelling it out.

I haven’t used Google as my primary search engine for many years but occasionally I do run a search on it. While the quality of results is extremely low, I never noticed anything obvious like a generic search term only returning results for a specific brand + that search term like the original article implied.

It seemed like a giant misunderstanding of how it all works from the start but made for a great headline.

How does any of this fit into the reality that you can pay $1 per 1000 captchas for a real, actual human to solve them? It seems like so much effort is put into this cat&mouse narrative with bot makers, ignoring the reality that sometimes labour is actually much cheaper.