Why the negativity? If google doesn't innovate in open web technologies, then closed systems will win, in this case Slack. Sure, bummer that they used the much-maligned "AMP" name and double-bummer that they didn't build a coalition among email client-writers first, incl Outlook.
My assumption us that AMP4email will get replaced by a truly-open standard (aka multi-vendor support), following the same path as Google's early R&D efforts in browser local storage and improved networking.
Google: what I'd really like to see is a way to authenticate between email sender-receiver (perhaps a one-time, OAuth-like dance with a website?). In addition to nuking certain forms of phishing attacks, users could [reasonably safely] conduct e-commerce inside the email client (much faster, more consistent etc)... kinda like wechat, etc.
> If google doesn't innovate in open web technologies, then closed systems will win
Besides the question of relevance (why do we care about web technologies in email, when studies have shown that most people prefer plain text, anyway?), this sounds like a straight up Appeal to Consequences.
My assumption us that AMP4email will get replaced by a truly-open standard (aka multi-vendor support), following the same path as Google's early R&D efforts in browser local storage and improved networking.
Google: what I'd really like to see is a way to authenticate between email sender-receiver (perhaps a one-time, OAuth-like dance with a website?). In addition to nuking certain forms of phishing attacks, users could [reasonably safely] conduct e-commerce inside the email client (much faster, more consistent etc)... kinda like wechat, etc.