I don't think the premise is right. From the beginning to now, Gmail evolved quite a bit. For one, they used their analytical knowledge to prioritize emails, which I found to be very helpful. Two, they started filtering newsletters and advertisements automatically. Third, the UI got revamped quite a bit. Add to that all the basics Gmail does right (spamfiltering, tag+-syntax, …), and you see why it is hard to compete.<p>That said, I don't use gmail anymore because I don't want my emails to be directly in the hands of the NSA.<p>But let's focus on their list for a bit. Because innovating a sector is not a goal. Having a goal and therefore innovating, that is a goal. So, does the list they formulated hold up? I don't think so:<p><i>better interfaces</i>: Better than gmail? Good luck. Besides, even old-style programs like claws-mail, sylpheed and thunderbird have really good interfaces, for their purpose.<p><i>better email management</i>: Gmail does that. And one has to be really careful with that: It is not something every user need, sure not something every user wants, especially if it even once sorts something the wrong way.<p><i>better workflow integration</i>: Emails are not tasks. They don't need task management in general. Emails are a communication medium, and sometimes, they contain or become tasks. but that is not a general requirement for users.<p><i>better attachment handling</i>: What does that mean besides searching for attachments, maybe including their title, and browsing through the photos? Like attachments.me tried to do. But all of that is not innovation…<p><i>better social integration</i>: The action one might want to do, like tweetbacks, should be linked in the email. Isn't that already the case? Blogs do that (ok, serendipity does, don't know about the others).<p><i>better prioritisation and analytic</i>: To general. Besides, Gmail tries that already.<p>So, hmpf. Though I want to add that their general product idea (shared inboxes for taskmanagement) doesn't look bad, for a very specific usecase.