Enjoy!

Simple application :
* fast use : get things done rapidly, in no more time than you need to go to the core of the action
* simple (not complicated) : no time lost in understanding how to do complex tasks

A good advanced application :
* packed with useful features, you may not need initially, but will soon be useful as you learn about them
* let’s you solve issues such as : classification (for instance of your messages), customization to you or your client’s taste

Advanced applications make a difference when they can be handled both by beginners and advanced users.
This means that the basic features are at the core front, and not hidden by the advanced perhaps more compelxe features.

Email is the most popular application on the Internet. So, many users may want and are familiar with some advanced features (such as priority, classification in folders, etc.). Good email applications (and they are many, either webmail-based or desktop-based) can be handled in thirty seconds for a simple urgent message, and with more specifications for messages you want to classify, customize, etc.

This is why, though Litepost may be great for some users, it may seem to basic for users, including me.

We’re all looking for a better ways of doing things. And yes,

better != array {
featurepacked;
featurestipped;
simpleton-istic;
any.one.thing;
}

I know I say this a lot but (it’s such a nice analogy), the iPod didn’t compete with or join other digital audio players. The market was saturated — not unlike the free email service market, although we have giant oligopolistic players — but they simply chose to carve out a new market. And yes, workflow (or in the case of the iPod, “clickwheelization”) was key. Interface. Human. Organic, perhaps.

(Thanks for that excellent post, Brad; got me thinking…)

Now don’t get me wrong — simplicity is good, but better is the idea that an application should present itself simply to the new user, but have more complicated and interesting features for advanced users. Perhaps these features won’t be as obviously simple on the front end, but if they are available as a user digs into the app, it will be all the better. If Litepost is able to present a simple interface on the front end, yet also allow some of these more interesting, advanced features (found in the 90% mentioned above) to be accessible to the advanced users, it could be a great app.

Another thing upcoming E-mail applications might want to consider is workflow. There are so many different E-mail applications out there, but none that I know of actually advocate a particular, efficient workflow. Should E-mails remain in the inbox, or should they be archived? Should they be tagged in a particular way, or in a free-form way? If application designers spent as much time designing workflow as they do designing features, applications might become much more powerful. Yes, you risk alienating a few users by providing a workflow they don’t like… but you would gain more fans than detractors, if it were done correctly. These are the kinds of decisions 37signals always seems to advocate: it’s not just about features, it’s about opinionated software. LitePost, what are your opinions? Don’t just gie me another “archive” button to use or not use. Make me think about my workflow.

Another thing to consider: how do people actually use your app? For instance, I know many people who use Gmail to keep track of their TODO items, simply by E-mailing themselves; wouldn’t it be nice, given this fact, if Gmail allowed for the creation of TODO items directly in the inbox, instead of forcing the user to E-mail herself? Or what if the app allowed users to edit subject lines of E-mails found in the inbox, so they can add their own notations about whatever actions need to be taken? Of how about allowing the user to drag and drop E-mails in the inbox to sort them? Things like this aren’t that hard to come up with, but nobody is doing them. Don’t just make another E-mail app. Help me be productive!

Here’s hoping that LitePost has a simple front end that gets more advanced along with the user, has a workflow in mind, and really understands the way its users make use of the app. If they do these things, they just might be successful.

This quote in their website is significant, I think:
“Ideal for small businesses and workgroups, the Litepost Webmail Server provides even more flexibility and security, as all of your messages reside on your own servers.”

Their open source approach to making the server software available to all suggests that corporate mail and in-house software are big targets for them to deploy their technology. I’ve always felt the “enterprise” side of computing has always been terribly unapproachable (that, however, might be so more IT folks keep their jobs), but using Litepost in that environment would make sense. Of course, security would have to be tight (funny there should be another post in Rev2 about Google and postini).

Of course, I’d always encourage fledgling new web startups; you never know what might be the next big thing (which reminds me, I need to get back to Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘The Tipping Point’). Threatening Google and Yahoo!’s strongholds will be difficult and will probably require more than just a new approach and a nice interface, but it’s certainly encouraging that there are those out there who are driven to try.