This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This page has been marked as needing an image.

To me the comparison is debatable. And it's important to make the distinction because Sparrow was loved by its users and its development simply ceased.

Sparrow captured lightning in a bottle: great features and speed. It could easily be argued that Google Inbox is resource intensive, and the layout is completely different -- it's one flowing column with expanding messages, for example.

I think the comparison should be refined. People who use Sparrow still miss it, and Google Inbox doesn't fill that hole. Prell ( talk) 01:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply