> “We decided it would be blazingly fast; it would be visually gorgeous; the whole thing would work offline; you wouldn’t need a multitude of browser extensions to get things done; and people would be materially faster at doing their email.”<p>I've not used the previous product(s) this guy has worked on, but from reading TFA, and notably the way they reiterate those claims a few times, I'm confused.<p>First, general nomenclature grumble, using an existing english word as a product name.<p>They seem to be positioning as a superior option to gmail, for current gmail users. Disclaimer - I've been using email since the late 1980's, and gmail since 2004. I've also used a bundle of other mail clients (kmail/kontact, outlook, thunderbird, etc).<p>Gmail <i>is</i> blazingly fast - I've not seen it stall or choke or any tasks<p>Visually gmail looks clean and effective to my eye -- and I don't think <i>gorgeousness</i> would be a compelling reason to move away.<p>Gmail <i>can</i> work fine offline - either mobile device, or the wonderful Gmail Offline extension[1] -- sure, it's Chrom* only, but I gather the 'gigabytes of offline' in this thing is Chrom* only also(?). That extension is fantastic for flights or when I'm working in remote regions, and don't want to deal with a mobile device.<p>Apart from that, I don't have any other gmail-specific extensions - but even if I did, is it believed these are harder to set up and learn than a different mail client?<p>Really at a loss how <i>I</i> could be faster 'at doing my email' -- for people I see who struggle with email, a small portion of their problem is familiarity with the features of their client, but most of it is because their workflow is poor. Rarely is it because the mail client is actually broken and working against you. (Outlook being the obvious exception.)<p>[1] <a href="https://gmail.googleblog.com/2011/08/using-gmail-calendar-and-docs-without.html" rel="nofollow">https://gmail.googleblog.com/2011/08/using-gmail-calendar-an...</a>