Ask HN: Why did Gmail become popular?

Hotmail and Yahoo mail were the primary contenders at the time. Both featured banner ads at the top. Because CSS and HTML were in their infancy, the height was generally fixed, and on smaller monitors it could take up 1&#x2F;3 of the screen or more.<p>As I recall, Google had no ads. A small text ad, maybe, but I think that was added later. They also did a much better job of removing spam from my inbox. In addition they offered a lot more storage for free, which was actually a concern at the time. I&#x27;d have to go through and purge my email because simple emails with images were forcing me to manage my old emails. This became a problem over time with Hotmail, which I used, because I wanted to save some emails for their historical value or value to me.<p>Gmail jumped right on common features like folders and tags, and continued to expand further than other free email clients with better search functionality, easier multi-account SMTP and POP management through a single account, which I use for my 15 email accounts to this day, and automated filters that allowed me to make sure I saw certain emails or didn&#x27;t see others unless I wanted to.<p>I think for most people it was just a clean interface, more storage, and better spam. But it also had features for more advanced users that made both tech amatuers and pros prefer it.

I remember it pretty well. The gigabyte of storage was a big deal at the time. It seemed like an impossible amount to provide for free at that point in computing history. It was also invite only at the time when that growth hack trick was a novelty, so there was a lot of exclusivity to reserve a great address at a time when all the common names were already taken at Hotmail. My first few invites felt pretty special to give out to friends. Finally, what made the account really stick after that first wave of signups was that the webmail experience was fast, modern and clean at a time when competitors felt distinctly 90’s.<p>Now my common name email address is a curse of unending spam.

From what I recall from their advertising push from that time-frame, they advertised heavily their providing (I think) 1GiB of email storage for free, at a time when the other email providers offered on the order of 1 or 2 or 5 MiB of free storage. Their advertising &quot;jingle&quot; was something to do with &quot;never have to delete another email&quot;. I think they also coupled this with supposedly better search capability to allow you to &quot;find&quot; an email you were looking for in that &quot;never delete another email&quot; pile you could collect.<p>Later they played up &quot;better SPAM filtering&quot; (specifically fewer false positives) than the competition (whether it was better I cannot say, as I have never been a gmail user).

Really easy one: The first email with a decent search, and a philosophy that with good search folders are redundant.<p>Also a help: A generous free allowance and snappy clean interface at the time (2004?) plus the old waitlist invite only trick for fake scarcity.<p>This was in the MSN &#x2F; Yahoo bloaty web heydey too.

Gmail was the only freemail service with pop+imap support.<p>In Germany it got rapidly adopted because the competition (web.de and gmx.net, both from 1und1) had less than 10MB space and had a hard limit of 100 mails, no matter their size. And more importantly: no way to download the emails and to archive them.<p>The most ironic thing was the animation of the storage size on Gmail at the time, because it was growing daily, and they made a counter animation that was increasing storage size (e.g. 1.12345 gigabytes and growing) due to them heavily investing in data centers at the time.

A historical footnote: When Gmail was announced on April 1, 2004, people assumed that it was an April Fool&#x27;s Joke. A gigabyte of storage for free seemed absurd.<p>It was invite-only, which possibly made it seem more desirable than it might otherwise be. But really, I think the biggest factor was its portability. At the time, you tended to use either your work&#x2F;school email or the email associated with your ISP, both of which could change over time. You can keep your gmail address forever, and people saw that as a benefit.<p>There were competitors, but they had clunkier interfaces and smaller storage. GMail showed what web apps could do, in a way that&#x27;s old hat now but was rather shocking at the time.

Mostly plain old marketing and initial exclusivity (you had to get invited by another user).<p>But you also have to keep in mind that other webmail services were rather simple and slow. Most users still used an actual mail client.

1. Lots of storage<p>2. forever beta stage, requiring phone number. this made it more exclusive.

At first, a much better service than anything we had seen and 1 GB of free storage.<p>But I think the service truly exploded in popularity with Android phones asking people to either sign in or sign up.

Three things:<p>It was free, with essentially limitless storage (or that&#x27;s how it seemed at the time).<p>The UI was decent, fast, with no page reloads -- it felt responsive, like a native app.<p>Google seems to be the first to really leverage the large number of their accounts to catch spam more effectively than the other providers. You basically got no spam from GMail in the beginning.<p>Yahoo and Hotmail were both super clunky in comparison: slow, ads, more spam. It really was no contest.<p>And then Android just meant nearly everyone got an account ...

In addition to the storage, which was a big reason, the UI was miles ahead of the competition at the time.<p>Remember this was in the IE 6 days. I remember reading a Google blog post about how they reverse engineered some aspects of the IE JavaScript engine to optimize their code.

It had 2GB, an insane amount of storage. Hotmail had around 20MB? I remember that figure. That was reason #1 that is caught on.<p>Reason #2, it was invite only and it had this sense of &quot;exclusivity&quot; that eventually went away.

I won&#x27;t say I was advertised to, but it definitely felt like a marketed presence. The slow roll invite may have been technically reasoned but I assume it was more an inclusivity trick.<p>The storage, though. That was the true hook.

Before GMail I had an email account from my family&#x27;s internet provider (Comcast). Needless to say GMail was much better designed and easier to use. Google also was an extremely cool company in general then.

In addition to the other features mentioned, it was also the invite-only-effect in the beginning. I got an invite to create an account and it was exciting. I was then given invites to share with others too.

A better UI, there were no message threads in yahoo and hotmail. Every reply was shown as new e-mail cluttering your view. Also as others have mentioned, almost 20 times more storage than the competitors.

Because the alternatives those days really really sucked. Small storages and spam filters that wasn&#x27;t working correctly. Now Gmail is a downgraded service and their spam filter is the worst.

1. They effectively completely eliminated spam.<p>2. The interface was far superior.<p>3. Essentially completely free.<p>It basically blew every other option out of the water at that time.

Gmail still has the best UI, unfortunately...<p>I tried to use live.com lately, and it is not as good.<p>I also use Protonmail and others, but Gmail usually works better.

The size of free email box. Gigabyte was a lot compared to measly megabytes I think alternatives were offering.

minimal ads, a waiting list that you had to be invited to so it made it cool if you had a gmail email, boasting about unlimited storage for email (big deal back then), the better web mail interface.

spam filter and large e-mail storage got me to switch. In short,they offered a better product and it was free. Also, very important, it was easy to switch. It took little to no effort.

storage was 100% of the contest, the rest was affectation