Gmail likely could have stood alone as a product (that is, I don't think it required promotion on google.com). It was a tremendous innovation at the time, on both interface, usability, and storage capacity. It leapfrogged hotmail by 100 fold on storage.
You know, if its a list of one item, its not really a list, so there is no need to pretend to footnote. This silly over-use of citation markup when it is completely unneeded adds to the smarmy faux-studiousness of comments on HN.
Just say Apr 2004, according to Wikipedia, was a long time ago. Don't pretend to use extra markup, don't imply a list of citations where there isn't one, and don't make a sentence for a human look like its been formatted for a computer.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Or what it has to do with what I said.
I've been a user of Gmail since it entered beta. What's your point exactly?
If you have something to say, say it, don't be smug by linking to a wikipedia entry for Gmail, as though I don't already know what year it was created.
