And for older folk, I still see plenty of @aol and @<serviceprovider> addresses.
Don't mistake what youre friends are doing for what the world as a whole is doing!
Nobody's done much more than reach parity with GMail since then, so there's been no big incentive to switch back.
Yahoo Mail and Hotmail were terrible then, and they're still mostly terrible now.
So why is everything that has big market shares bad?
How about we switch to a model where we gat bad at companys that are actually selling us shitty products instead.
In any case, it's bad because it means that if I don't want to agree to Google's terms of service for whatever reason or just don't want to interact with them as a company (perhaps I disagree with some corporate policy of theirs), then I have to either deal with a worse experience, self-host, or pay money to a company like FastMail. If there were reasonable competition, I and many others could use them, and Google would have to convince us not to switch.
Even if there is no good one, there CLEAR are still many, many others that you can use.
Edit: Competiton is not defined as same service at same price. All email services compete with each other, gmail did not kill the competition or the market they just offered the best system on one price range. You are basiclly complaining that others that have diffrent privacy policy are not as good or cheap as gmail.
You offered this as a response to somebody saying that google was good for the market, but they clearly were. You get better free email in most aspects and you still have tons of other options including the old shitty free email providers.
These post feel like a bad accuse to find a reason to hate on google, or maybe im misunderstanding you.
