I think it was way less than that. Wasn't it like ... 2MB?
No. It was 1 GB:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail
"after considering alternatives such as 100 MB, the company finally settled upon 1 GB of space, a figure that was preposterous compared to the 2 to 4 MB that was the standard at the time.[3]"
"On 1 April 2005, exactly one year after the initial release, Gmail increased the mailbox size to 2 GB, advertising it as 2GB plus"
The sample of the news from these times:
https://betanews.com/2005/04/01/gmail-storage-to-reach-2gb-a...
I referred to what Hotmail had at the time.
Yeah, the change to 100 or 200mb came as a desperate attempt later to stop the gmail hemorrhage.
Re:Why Google+ Failed
by tigershark on Thursday June 20, 2019 @02:46PM
(#20235950)
I kind of remember that was something like 10 or 20MB, but yes, was about 2 order of magnitude less.
Re:Why Google+ Failed
by rawoke083600 on Thursday June 20, 2019 @12:19PM
(#20234367)
True. My grandma was in fb early.. She never even knew what Google+ was. Its only a social network if there are ppl on.
Compared to that, nobody cared about a Facebook ripoff with a different UI and none of the network effects.