There's something funny about the whole rapportive story, google at some point will notice, then they have to make a decision, allow this to set precedent which will open the floodgates to similar trickery or build a 'rapportive detector' in to their system which will most likely result in stopping rapportive from working. I have all kinds of questions about this strategy.
I'm sure that rapportive has thought this through, but is there any official response on this?
And the other side of the ledger, what if google does decide to go after them, how will they deal with the backlash from their users (that goes for both rapportive and for google)?
Plastering something across someone else's adspace seems somehow not the most fair thing to do, blocking ads is one thing, but replacing them with other content?
Is that ok? Is it ok to replace the ads with other ads? Do we all agree that functionality trumps ads and therefore rapportive is in the right on this?
What if the party wasn't google but a much smaller one depending on those ads for its income, would it still be ok then?
We're trying to make something people want. The traction we've achieved suggests that a lot of people do want more context and social information in their inbox. It also suggests that a lot of people don't want the ads Gmail serves.
If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them. Some people might even use it: we've had a couple of requests from people who want to monitor the Gmail ads they've purchased, or who use the ads as a way of keeping an eye on their competitors' marketing activities.
We are making Gmail more useful, and we think that's beneficial for Google.
The revenue from the ads is certainly not the only benefit Google derives from Gmail: others include paid inbox upgrades, driving adoption of Google Apps, and the world's biggest corpus for spam filtering. We're not depriving them of any of those benefits; if we can increase adoption or engagement with Gmail, then we actually reinforce them. We've even heard of people switching to Gmail because they want the Rapportive sidebar.
The ethics of hiding the Gmail ads rather depend on the facts of Google's business strategy, and those facts are probably not available to anyone commenting here. You assert that "the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported" - that's not a fact, it's just one of the possible strategies Google might be taking. Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock [1], which hides the Gmail ads. Google could trivially ban it from the gallery, but it's still there.
We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing, but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong, and if so you shouldn't install Rapportive until we solve that. In the meantime, don't forget to keep clicking on those ads ;)
That's not some kind of magic incantation that gives you the right to do as you please though.
> If it becomes an issue, we'll probably add an option to get Rapportive to coexist with the ads rather than replacing them.
Shouldn't that have been the default?
> Here's a fact: the most popular entry by far in the Google Chrome Extensions gallery - with 1.3 million installs, and 126k more each week - is AdBlock, which hides the Gmail ads.
Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.
I'm afraid you're setting precedent here, that by doing this you are opening the doors to it being 'ok' to modifying content in-flight in ways that the creator of that content does not sanction and does not condone, directly targeting the bottom line of one specific site.
I'm sure you're doing it out of a good motivation but I simply can't find myself agreeing with this strategy, especially not when you admit that you have alternatives.
> We don't have any ethical problems with what we're doing,
Apparently :)
> but we understand if you feel software that blocks the ads is wrong
I'm fine with ad blocking in the general case, just can't see why you wouldn't have any ethical issues with this.
Anyway, enough said, I do hope you succeed and I do hope that at some point you might come to see things my way.
If someone pulled a 'rapportive' on you I'd be on your side just as strongly.
> Adblock does not target a specific site, it hides all the ads.
I don't get this point at all. Why is it more ethical for a user to choose to hide ads indiscriminately than hiding ads on certain sites? Would it resolve your ethical concerns if our software blocked all ads everywhere, like Adblock does, but continued to only add value to Gmail? (The latter is functionally identical to installing both Rapportive and Adblock.)
I'm not sure if what I've written so far didn't get the point across how I will be able to do so with more words, but I'll give it a try.
Targeting a large website to launch your product off is a fine strategy, you benefit from the existing userbase. That should be 'profit' enough for anybody, there is no need to kick them in the teeth by affecting their bottom line in a negative way, especially if you don't absolutely have to.
Those users that did not want to see those ads already had the option to install adblock, so by doing this you are not adding anything that wasn't on the table before, only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads.
It's either rapportive, or ads, but never both and that should have been the default.
Clearer now?
I think this whole ad-replacement gig is a blemish on an otherwise very nicely conceived and executed product.
"only now you and not the user has taken the decision to block those ads"
Actually the user does make the decision to block those ads. I don't care much for the ads in Gmail but never overcame my inertia to even think of installing an adblocker. Along comes Rapportive, which promises to offer me something useful and hey presto, my inertia is overcome.
In the end the user makes the choice and that is as it should be. It shouldn't be up to the user to worry about how Gmail does (or does not) make money.
I've found that Google likes users that are engaged with their products, whether it's search, Gmail, or any of the other tons of products.
Search is only valuable for Google because a lot of people use it. Surely Gmail is more valuable the more other people use it? (Even if it's not in the same way.) I mean, that's the whole point of the Google Apps Marketplace: http://www.google.com/enterprise/marketplace/
It seems to me that if you're okay replacing ads on Gmail you'd be okay with replacing ads on Search as well?
Or are you saying you're okay with replacing ads on Gmail - but on Search replacing ads would be wrong? This seems like a slippery slope you're treading.
Like I said, I see the two business models very differently. My personal theory is that there is a LOT more potential revenue for Gmail in the enterprise. (Google tried and largely failed in the internal enterprise search market.)
Each small business of 20 people that pays for Premier service makes Google $1000. (And that's $1000/year recurring revenue.) Those same people would have to click on a LOT, LOT of ads (content/display ads, which earn much less money than search) to make the same amount of money through advertising. And there are hundreds of thousands of businesses world-wide that are potential Google Apps customers.
Fundamentally, I see a LOT more potential revenue for Gmail through enterprise deployment. If they have to sacrifice a small amount of ad revenue in order for users to use the tools they want to use as part of their job/life, then that's a tradeoff I'd be more than willing to make if I was in the shoes of a Gmail manager.
The model for Google web search involves getting as many users to search on Google, and putting the most relevant ads possible next to the results. The enterprise aspects of the business model don't exist, and that's why Gmail business model != Google search business model.
I really don't get this point, no idea why people are so hung up on x company hiding content/adverts on the web.
WebMynd (also YC, incidentally) replaced Google.com adverts with content and Google never minded - WebMynd has lots more users and funding than Rapportive, and has been around for many many more years.
Also, when Google released their GMail gadgets marketplace, Rapportive was officially recommended on their blog, and I think it was one of the first on the scene.
Also, didn't that Paul guy who created GMail invest in them? I think he would have prodded the GMail team in his due diligence.
Given that GMail has millions of users, it's highly unlikely Rapportive will ever cause damage to whatever revenue GMail creates from adverts (its highly unlikely - sadly - that Rapportive will ever get, say, 5% of gmail users using Rapportive - the number is simply too big) - I imagine most of GMails revenue is from users paying for larger inboxes. Because they spend all their time in their mail client. Making them the dream Rapportive customer.
"Google shuts down service hundreds of thousands of GMail users love so they can make more money" doesn't sound like a very nice PR campaign. I suspect GMail is all about keeping users loving the Google, rather than monetizing.
I doubt Google will ever blog "hey guys, replace our adverts" because i think shareholders might raise eye brows, but turning a blind eye towards revenue in favour of delighted users sounds like a fair trade off.
Also if Google did make a move, it would cause so much press to flood towards Rapportive they'd be rather happy. (jinx)
I'd like to see people remarking how much users love Rapportive (search twitter) or how brilliant their customer service is, rather than what might cause Rapportive to fail.
What stopped rapportive from simply inserting their box in the dom in a way that they did not have to remove a revenue driver from the thing they are building their base on?
> "Google shuts down service hundreds of thousands of GMail users love so they can make more money" doesn't sound like a very nice PR campaign.
There's an element reminiscent of blackmail in there that I really don't like. Just because you can does not make it right.
Somehow this doesn't pass the smell test, I can't quite put my finger on it but if this wasn't sanctioned by google (which it very well may have been) then I find it an odd thing to do.
Launching an add-on service, fine, launching one to the detriment of the bottom line of the service you're launching it on, not cool.
If google would do something like this to a YC company we'd be nailing them to the highest tree.
"a revenue driver" seems to be the key phrase here to me. Specifically,
Gmail business model != Google Search business model
To me, killing Gmail ads doesn't necessarily kill the Gmail business model. I would think Gmail is a strategic tool in acquiring loyal Google product users (at a consumer scale) and in acquiring loyal Apps/Enterprise prospects and users (at an enterprise scale).
> What stopped rapportive from simply inserting their box in the dom in a way that they did not have to remove a revenue driver from the thing they are building their base on?
Oh come on, does anyone miss that box? it was a total waste of space, no one [1] clicked those adverts.
> If google would do something like this to a YC company we'd be nailing them to the highest tree.
To be honest this is the ~3rd post on Hacker News about Rapportive, and lots of the comments have been pretty negative. I think this is more a case of supporting a startup being innovative (and loved), rather than due to their background being YC.
The main rebuttal to your argument is that Rapportive have offered an application in the GMail market place that inserts content where Google wants it to go. They don't replace adverts in the Marketplace version.
I think Rapportive simply looked at GMail, thought where redundant space was - which was obviously the adverts - and put value there. Then, Google offered their gadgets stuff and Rapportive offer that as a solution too.
We can debate if this was evil or not evil of Rapportive to execute upon till the cows come home, but at the end of the day they've got into YC, they've raised a ton of money, they've delighted users, so who cares whose feathers they ruffle. You're in business, you're at war, you are not a not-for-profit (semi ironic accidental double negative?) peace loving nerd.
[1]: Sample size = 1 = me. I never clicked them, they were a joke. Adverts in email is dumb.
> I never clicked them, they were a joke. Adverts in email is dumb.
I actually did a few times when I got relevant advertisements - the only reason I stopped is because the ads seemed to get targeted and started standing out to me more, distracting me from email. Now when I see an ad I like, I open control+t a new tab open and google the service... hmm, that seems funny somehow. I might click ads again if there was a setting to not have my Gmail remember/optimize for me.
Rapportive got 10k installs in 24 hours just because an early tester happened to send one tweet about it. (And surely many, many more since then.) That doesn't happen unless you've got a hot product, so I don't understand the sentiment here.
Honestly, how likely is it that the demographic using Rapportive is one that clicks on ads? I would imagine there is essentially zero money lost for Google.
Besides, how is this different than ad blocking? I install in my browser plugins that improve my browsing experience. That includes flashblock, adblock plus, pop-up blockers (a feature historically so popular that it is now built-in the major browsers), and other addons that alter the content I see on the web page.
Another example: People share hosts files that block different annoying services like intellitxt and Snap Shots. This is no different in this regard.
Rapportive is actually better because the space previously used by ads that I would never click is now actually useful. It's a step forward from simple ad blocking.
Changing the content of someone else's page in flight is already murky enough when translation services do it, but when you actively start messing with someone else's revenue stream I feel some line has been crossed.
That line is probably labelled 'symbiotic' on one side and 'parasitic' on the other.
You're arguing from the point of view of Google, in that they will lose money due to a symbiotic/parasitic addon. I'm arguing from the point of view of the actual user who seeks the best experience they can get.
I think it's the user's choice. People installing ad blockers, and in some cases re-using their space for another purposes, is the market sending a signal to Google. Google and other ad hosts can get cranky as much as they want, but it's my browser on my computer and my browsing experience.
If they offered an ad-free for-pay version, I'm sure they'll get many customers. Heck, they would make money off of me when I am not giving them any right now.
How would you feel if you were operating a store selling ice-cream without whipped-cream, and some guy walked in, threw your chocolate boxes out in to the street and started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience, after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway?
Never mind that the user owns the browser, the whole principle of gmail being free is that it is ad supported and this project was launched in the hope that as large a number of people as they can attract would adopt it.
So at some point it will start to affect googles bottom line. Is that ok?
Of course it is the browser on your computer, that's fine. But this is not you doing this, it's rapportive doing it, setting up shop inside googles pages displayed on your computer.
> started giving people whipped-cream inside your store because it improves the users experience...
I think in this analogy, he'd be right outside my window, not in my store. As you say, I'm not selling whipped cream to begin with.
> after all, none of the ones buying ice-cream were buying chocolate anyway?
If my customers weren't buying the chocolate then why am I stocking it? Clearly, there's something for me to learn here from the guy outside my window. Perhaps I should have a chat with him and see what we can do together. After all, the more people that come by my shop, the more opportunities I have to sell them ice lollies.
This analogy is not 100% accurate. A better attempt: If I were giving free ice creams along with a local business flyer, Rapportive is basically a stall nearby that offers a better ice cream cone while taking the flyer.
That's the user's choice. For me as an ice cream vendor it would suck. For me as a user, it's a more yummy cone.
Except that all the income the ice cream vendor made was made from giving away the flyers, you've reduced their effectiveness to the point where the flyers no longer bring in the money and he has to close up shop.
Now in the case of google that's a stretch, but this is not 'ok because it is google', neither would it be 'illegal because the party it is done to is small and vulnerable'.
It's either 'ok' or it is 'not ok' not taking in to account the size of the party it is done to.
It doesn't matter what type of ad, it is getting blocked anyway. Besides, banner blindness is why these things don't perform well. The CPM ads have, usually, very low CPMs.
If both Rapportive and Google are grown ups chances are that Google will make a "plug-in" column if Rapportive starts getting big. Rapportives objective isn't blocking ads but enhancing the GMail experience, and Google should be all for that.
Does anyone remember the nasty spyware war on Windows 10 years back? There were a number of spyware companies back then whose browser plug-in (IE BHO) would replace the ads on the pages showing on IE with their own. They often stepped on each other and tried to uninstall each other. They escalated the war by hooking into the kernel to make themselves very difficult to be removed. It declined when the anti-spyware and anti-virus software started removing the spywares.
This whole story sounds sensationalist IMO. They are forgetting two things.
1) Rapportive serves a purpose - showing social information
2) Perhaps Google will introduce GMail "widgets" or blocks so Rapportive and similar services could use it.
That said, I agree with you on the depriving income ethical concerns.
I agree with what you're saying in terms of the ads. But if I'm Google I let the social CRM players duke it out as well as play with alternative ad models - pick a winner and acquire them. Then I can do what I want with the competition.
So a new strategy for acquisition is to mess directly with someone else's revenue stream? Instead of building a competing product with the feature added?
While you can change the server every second, it still has to look roughly the same to the user. If they try changing the name of the HTML elements on every page load, Rapportive just needs to detect based on position on the screen.
If they start looking at the DOM or making behavioural tests to see if Rapportive is loaded, then Rapportive just needs to make sure the browser returns the same results as when it's not loaded.
They could even run it in another process, and just position a window over the right area.
User agents (tend to) run on general purpose computers with no lock down. If you control the user agent, you win the detection war.
Lawyers are Google's own means of effectively stopping Rapportive, but the PR fallout might be interesting to watch.
There are a lot of ways Google can play ball: change the TOS of GMail to exclude certain plug-ins, change the ad div's signature, randomly generate different ad's display logic, digitally sign the GMail's content/code to prevent alternation, have their own plug-in to verify the content, bring out the big gun lawyers.
You think Google would make it so Chrome would not handle their extension? That would cause such a shitstorm for Google - and isn't Adblock a far more likely target if they wanted to go down that road?
Adblock is not site specific, google could make it their policy that any extension targeted to mess with advertising on a specific site would be against their TOS.
This would catch a whole pile of potential malware and, unfortunately, stuff like this would be caught in the dragnet.
It's the user who are agreeing to the TOS by visiting a given website. Google cannot define TOS for any other website. They can however do it for their own website. But then, since it's the user who visits the website, why should an extension designer be responsible? And it would be crazy for anyone to go after each user without making a big mess.
"These days, most Gmail users never even glance at the ads filling the right-hand column."
What sort of idiot writes that. I mean seriously. Do people really believe that Google just serves up those millions of impressions for the hell of it with no payback?
People look at them. People click them. Google makes a ton of money. Advertisers get a shedload of traffic.
It's an absolute douchebag move to mess with other peoples content. Reminds me of the free wifi services that inject their own adverts at the top of every page on the internet, or rewrite affiliate links etc. I don't care if this plugin is useful or not, I don't want it to mess with the DOM.
Author of the original article here. I guess I should have said that I never glance at the Gmail ads and I have a hard time imagining why anyone would, as they are consistently irrelevant to me. As soon as I learned about a plugin that could replace the ads with something useful, I installed it.
On the other point that seems to be getting commenters riled up -- "messing with other people's content" -- I think I am on Rapportive's side. I admit that I would be seriously annoyed if someone wrote a plugin that replaced my stories on Xconomy with, say, TechCrunch stories. But that's the risk of publishing on the Web, where the viewing platform is not ultimately under your control. And if people started using such plugin widely, it would be useful feedback for me -- it would mean that I should do something to make my own stories more interesting. Google should see Rapportive as a signal that something is missing in Gmail. Either they should provide more relevant ads, or they should copy (or buy) Rapportive.
> I would be seriously annoyed if someone wrote a plugin that replaced my stories on Xconomy with, say, TechCrunch stories. But that's the risk of publishing on the Web
How would you feel about someone writing a plug-in that left your content in one piece, removed the ads and used your site with all the associated expenses as a way to launch their product?
And if google did decide to provide 'more relevant ads' how do you propose those will reach their viewer after rapportive has 'claimed' the space?
Wouldn't it have been better to add the rapportive feature to the page somehow instead of removing a feature (ads) they deemed superfluous?
"Google should see Rapportive as a signal that something is missing in Gmail. Either they should provide more relevant ads, or they should copy (or buy) Rapportive."
That's ridiculous. How many people are using Rapportive? 0.00000001% of GMail users maybe?
Do you know how much cash those ads generate for Google? Nope. Didn't think so.
Is this how Rapportive works? Because the idea sounds very useful, but do you really want to build a business around altering the appearance of someone else's application? Particularly troubling is that they are removing one of the few money making parts of Gmail.
If it really starts to catch on, are they in for an arms race with Google?
Plus, with this focus, it appears that this company may be left with only one exit strategy: acquisition by Google.
Like I said, this sounds quite useful, but I'm not sure that I'd like to get in the middle of it...
I must admit I'm totally confused by how they think they'll monetize the business without being a simple talent acquisition without crossing the dangerous line of essentially stealing google's money.
Then again, YC signed 'em up on the spot and the guy's past experience is impressive. So we're probably not seeing the whole picture here. I can only imagine the money makers come from further as yet unreleased web apps or features that integrate.
Although the dark thought emerges that it'll be selling the client cleaned data that they're gathering. That would be truly low. But I'm encouraged by their privacy policy that this won't happen: http://rapportive.com/privacy
We're going to monetise by building useful tools people want to pay for. We're not yet ready to publicly discuss exactly what those are, but selling data is definitely not it.
Thanks for linking to our privacy policy. From that document (under "Sharing with third parties"):
> We will never sell, rent or give away private data about you or your contacts. Our business is in making your inbox more powerful, not in selling databases.
That's the whole point of Gmail's Contextual Gadgets. For example, we created a gadget that's tied to our homegrown Helpdesk system so recipients of tickets can manipulate them directly within email rather than logging into the Helpdesk app.
It wouldn't surprise me if Google nudged Rapportive in the direction of contextual gadgets for this reason, but since GAPE domains already allow disabling of ads it isn't like Rapportive is causing Google any pain & suffering. On the consumer side, like others have said, it's all client side so besides having to deal with Gmail's funkalicious obfuscated js I don't risk see much risk.
How much money does Gmail actually make? Whenever I open up Gmail, I am way too busy to be looking at ads. I'm sure there's a non-zero number of people clicking on ads, but as far as I'm concerned Google is mostly providing free IMAP service with a nice web interface and great uptime.
The minute I saw Rapportive I started using it. The idea and the implementation are just great. Not that it does something revolutionary at the moment, but it's simple and useful and I believe there's a potential. Great job, guys!
I've read through the comments here and I'm really surprised by those that bring up Gmail's 'revenue' streams.
Unless someone from Gmail cares to comment on:
(a) How Gmail handles their P&L
(b) What the main drivers really are
... then anything you read here is speculation. If I've missed something, please do point me to it.
I agree that there may be a separate argument about 'messing with people's sites' on the client side, but that really isn't new.
Is anyone else a fan of the reporting Wade has been doing on this batch of YC companies? I've really enjoyed the in-depth articles - a nice contrast to the typical ADD of the Internet echo chamber.
Congrats on the writeup Rahul, Sam, Martin, and team!
My favorite part: "They invested over Skype, which was kind of cool, and we all got drunk that evening.”
I use etacts.com, which seems like the exact same thing. Is there a difference? I think the major benefit to me is mainly just to see the person's face. It helps humanize the person on the other end of the email, and often prompts my memory if we've met before.
eTacts us also YC. I believe the timeline went like this:
1. eTacts launched as an email reminder service
2. eTacts gets into YC
3. Rapportive launched as a personal CRM
4. Rapportive gets major traction, eTacts launches their own personal CRM
5. Rapportive gets into YC
So...yes, they're virtually identical right now.
eTacts also does email reminders, but Rapportive has Raplets.
I think eTacts (god that uppercase T looks hideous) always had some CRM stuff. Etacts also has tons of analytics and such, which Rapportive does not. I'm biased towards the Rapportive guys cus I know them, but I don't think its fair to say Etacts copied Rapportive much (if thats what you were saying)
The problem with Rapportive as a business model is that it relies entirely on Google acquiring them. They have one customer. If Google doesn't want it, it's a bomb. Despite the usefulness of the service, that's a pretty risky proposition.
Rapportive content itself could be a type of ad. For example when reading an email from someone who has a LinkedIn account Google/Rapportive will display the connection for a small fee per impression from LinkedIn.
I'm sure that rapportive has thought this through, but is there any official response on this?
And the other side of the ledger, what if google does decide to go after them, how will they deal with the backlash from their users (that goes for both rapportive and for google)?
Plastering something across someone else's adspace seems somehow not the most fair thing to do, blocking ads is one thing, but replacing them with other content?
Is that ok? Is it ok to replace the ads with other ads? Do we all agree that functionality trumps ads and therefore rapportive is in the right on this?
What if the party wasn't google but a much smaller one depending on those ads for its income, would it still be ok then?