Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:17 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

The disease of using closed standards for lock-in is too deep in their blood. It's simply hard for them to suddenly get cured. Look what pains it took them to cure IE somewhat, and only under real pressure. When pressure will increase may be they'll cure this one as well. When they'll also cure the lack of OpenGL support on their platforms - they'll hit another major milestone, after which MS will probably become history, since they themselves admitted that they can't survive without using lock-in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_lock-in

Edited 2012-12-18 00:26 UTC

Reply Score: 19

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Delgarde on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

They're also very slow to respond to changes in the market, compared to their competitors. Even if they start today on adding support for those standards, I'd not expect them to be shipping that support for at least a year, probably more - it'll come whenever their next major release occurs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by cdude on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

And they are losing there vendor lock-in battle. Good news for customers, ISV, competition. Bad news for Microsoft who indeed has to compete now. How well that works out without there vendor-lockin we see with WinPhone.

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 11:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Absolute Rubbish major parts of the ASP.NET stack is Open Source now.

I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically, but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.

One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).

OOXML is an ISO standard,

OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


C# is a ISO standard ...

C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since). What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.

If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


I could go on.

Please do, because every one of your examples demonstrates how MS had shunned established standards ;)

None of the web browsers had any decent support for standards til 2009.

Competition from Firefox didn't make them adhere to standards, Firefox 1 and 2 were hardly standards compliant.

Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE (hence why I used Phoenix & Firebird) and Firefox 3 was released in 2006. Plus there was Opera and kHTML-based browsers. Hell, even webkit was released in 2005, nearly half a decade before you claimed the competition began.

So I really don't know where you pulled the '2009' figure from, but it's grossly inaccurate.

Edited 2012-12-18 12:43 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by sisora on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
sisora Member since:
2011-08-26

I agree with you. I still don't understand why .net is not open sourced yet. I understand about Windows or Office. But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway. Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because Enterprise customers and other businesses build apps against .NET version X. It is the same reason why they produce IE, their customers want a browser with a stable set of features.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

IE has been anything but consistent: the rendering engine performs massively different from version to version.

It's the worst performing browser for breaking sites between versions.

Edited 2012-12-18 13:10 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is consistent within its own version, which is what an Enterprise customer wants out of a web browser.

Microsoft says "IE will support these features"

IE supports those features and newer features aren't added until a new version of the browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

It is consistent within its own version, which is what an Enterprise customer wants out of a web browser.

Microsoft says "IE will support these features"

IE supports those features and newer features aren't added until a new version of the browser.

That's how all software works. That's how version numbering works. It's not unique to IE, it's what everyone expects and not something specific to enterprise customers.

Plus it's not even what enterprise customers request. They usually require support for a number of years and often across a range of versions. Which, to be fair, is something Microsoft are generally good at.

Edited 2012-12-18 14:46 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by bert64 on Wed 19th Dec 2012 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Features are added, and even sometimes removed...

IE6 had a feature to automatically populate and submit file upload forms (a huge security hole obviously), so this feature got removed - some third party applications, especially internal corporate apps depend on this and broke.

IE6 got a popup blocker as a service pack.. I'm sure there have been other changes too.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway.


They are paranoid about their enterprise profits which is where .NET is heavily used.

Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.


It's mostly a trick play to attract LAMP developers. Open sourcing MVC is a low risk to their business model. It is related to MVC being a poor fit for existing client .NET applications. They didn't suddenly find the open source gospel for a single technology.

Disclaimer: I am skeptical of Microsoft, open source gospel, and women.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically,


Well they aren't the same thing then are they?

but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.


What are you on about?

One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


Again, I dunno what this has to do with parts of ASP.NET being Open sourced.

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


So?

OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since).


C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

C# is Java Improved.

What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


One thing so far is true at least.

If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

Please do, because every one of your examples demonstrates how MS had shunned established standards ;)


What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE. Plus there was Opera, and kHTML-based browsers (even webkit was released in 98, a year before you claimed the competition began)


KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the
conversation.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer. What the OP always misses is that the reason people moved to it was nothing to do with standards compliance and the fact that at the time it was a better browser with more features.

2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

Edited 2012-12-18 13:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I see you've resorted to the "if you can't counter argument, then change the argument" method of trolling the interwebs.

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

You're now moving the goal posts as 'de facto standard' isn't the same as 'open standard'. You were arguing about open standards.


Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Application_support

ODF support was one second to MS's own proprietary formats. So if Microsoft cared about open standards, then they'd have switched to an established and widely supported format instead of creating their own one from scratch.

C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.

Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.

However that's besides the point as you're now arguing about the quality of the IDE, which absolutely nothing to do with the open standards of languages.

What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

I guess if you've only ever used MS technology then you're bound to be ignorant to the rest of the IT industry and their established standards ;)

KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the conversation.

You're hardly one to comment on the relevance of example given the number of times you've changed the argument to suit your bias.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.


2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.

What's more, you're just picking two arbitrary specifications chosen specifically because IE happened get there first. However when you look at the overall performance (eg using ACID as a benchmark), you'll see that IE was consistently one of the last browsers to meet standards (and that's even excluding Opera!)

Reply Score: 10

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You're now moving the goal posts as 'de facto standard' isn't the same as 'open standard'. You were arguing about open standards.


TBH I don't really care one way or another. I do care about people complaining about Microsoft supporting something that nobody uses and doesn't benefit their customers.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Application_support


And? So you have the most popular document format in the world and they make their own competeting standard and it didn't work out well.

Why would Microsoft support such as move, I don't know.

If I made my own popular file format and someone told me I should support it and it isn't nearly as widely used, I wouldn't bother to support it either.

ODF support was one second to MS's own proprietary formats. So if Microsoft cared about open standards, then they'd have switched to an established and widely supported format instead of creating their own one from scratch.


Why would they do that? there is no motivation to do so.


Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.


YES .NET 1.0 and 1.1 weren't great. C# != .NET.

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.


How can something be invented to break standards? It doesn't make sense.

It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.

You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.


Their Java IDE was still rubbish.

However that's besides the point as you're now arguing about the quality of the IDE, which absolutely nothing to do with the open standards of languages.


I was just stating my preference.

I guess if you've only ever used MS technology then you're bound to be ignorant to the rest of the IT industry and their established standards ;)


There was nothing that was a dejure standard that everyone used.

You're hardly one to comment on the relevance of example given the number of times you've changed the argument to suit your bias.


To be honest I went down this road because of ASP.NET being open sourced recently.

TBH I don't really care about the rest.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.


Yes IE7 was rubbish and had no excuse to be.

2009 was when IE8 got released and was the f
when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.


Well this is what a lot of developers are currently doing on Mobile. Webkit is king and anything that isn't Webkit is a second class citizen. Like it or Lump it that the way it is.

IE8 for CSS and XHTML was fine, If you whine about SVG and other things ... these simply aren't used by web developers.

What's more, you're just picking two arbitrary specifications chosen specifically because IE happened get there first. However when you look at the overall performance (eg using ACID as a benchmark), you'll see that IE was consistently one of the last browsers to meet standards (and that's even excluding Opera!)


Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.

Because I rate my browsing experience on whether something can pass the ACID test.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

TBH I don't really care one way or another. I do care about people complaining about Microsoft supporting something that nobody uses and doesn't benefit their customers.

We're talking about open standards, not MS supporting something that nobody uses

And? So you have the most popular document format in the world and they make their own competeting standard and it didn't work out well.

Why would Microsoft support such as move, I don't know.

If I made my own popular file format and someone told me I should support it and it isn't nearly as widely used, I wouldn't bother to support it either.

that doesn't even make sense.

Why would they do that? there is no motivation to do so.

You said MS support open standards. If that were true, then there would be motivation to do so. Ergo, you've just disproved your earlier statement.


YES .NET 1.0 and 1.1 weren't great. C# != .NET.

Languages are neither open nor closed nor even copyrighted (as proved with the Oracle vs Google case). It's their framework the decides the open nature of a language. Thus I'm discussing the crux of the matter when arguing about open standards.


How can something be invented to break standards? It doesn't make sense.

It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Clearly the context is talking about MS breaking from established standards rather than literally breaking the standards themselves.

Their Java IDE was still rubbish.

so you've basically used one IDE and feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about an entire company? Well done.


There was nothing that was a dejure standard that everyone used.

Clearly there was, but such standards never made it into MS products. However there's a whole industry outside of Microsoft.

To be honest I went down this road because of ASP.NET being open sourced recently.

So, like with Borland, you're making a sweeping generalisation about a whole company based on one product.

Well this is what a lot of developers are currently doing on Mobile. Webkit is king and anything that isn't Webkit is a second class citizen. Like it or Lump it that the way it is.

Yeah. sad but true ;)


IE8 for CSS and XHTML was fine, If you whine about SVG and other things ... these simply aren't used by web developers.

Web developers weren't using advanced techniques because they'd lose a high percentage of Windows users (pretty much half the web). It wasn't a matter of choice, it was because MS forced their hand.

However IE was an improvement and IE9 is actually a fairly decent browser. So web developers are now adding advanced techniques they couldn't risk before.

Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.

You talk as if the other browsers didn't support everyday features. That wasn't true. Instead they used browser specific extensions because, up until then, W3C dragged their heals in formalising said specifications. (and to be honest, I blame the w3c as much as I blame MS for the fiasco we had in the 90s / early 00s).

Because I rate my browsing experience on whether something can pass the ACID test.

We're talking about support for open standards, not how well web developers got at writing IE-specific hacks to make your browsing experience tolerable.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

so you've basically used one IDE and feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about an entire company? Well done.


That is what people say about Microsoft. I simply said I didn't like one of their IDEs nothing more.

Clearly there was, but such standards never made it into MS products. However there's a whole industry outside of Microsoft.


That far fewer people use.

So, like with Borland, you're making a sweeping generalisation about a whole company based on one product.


No I pointed out that it just simply isn't true for the whole company and Shmerl was making sweeping statements by saying so.

Web developers weren't using advanced techniques because they'd lose a high percentage of Windows users (pretty much half the web). It wasn't a matter of choice, it was because MS forced their hand.


Simply no, I haven't seen a need to use a lot of the "advanced features" other than CSS 3.0, and the browser should be allowed to fall back. If a web developer isn't using CSS 3.0 now and having appropriate fallbacks and polyfills ... they should be.

However IE was an improvement and IE9 is actually a fairly decent browser. So web developers are now adding advanced techniques they couldn't risk before.

You talk as if the other browsers didn't support everyday features. That wasn't true. Instead they used browser specific extensions because, up until then, W3C dragged their heals in formalising said specifications. (and to be honest, I blame the w3c as much as I blame MS for the fiasco we had in the 90s / early 00s).


Out of the two competing browsers in the 90s it was IE which innovated.

It is a testament to how good IE6 was ahead of everything else that is can still render pages decently today if the page is built correctly. Every single BBC webpage I have tried renders from IE6 to Latest Chrome perfectly.

IE4 had a massive number of downloads considering the bandwidth commonly available at the time (which nobody ever mentions).

We're talking about support for open standards, not how well web developers got at writing IE-specific hacks to make your browsing experience tolerable.


IE7 and IE8 require almost no hacks to render a page the same as any of the modern browsers. Those that exist are well documented and easily avoided.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by sukru on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


"C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.
"

I remember reading "C# for Java Developers" when I was in college. I don't remember being impressed by many books on the technical level as much as I did with that one. Every decision they made was for fixing the problems I had with java (no signed integers, no easy way to talk native, no easy xml processing, and of course properties, and metadata).

C# was only built, because MS could not adopt Java for Windows development (as you said they were sued for J++). But they only reason they wanted to extend Java was they knew (Anders knew) Visual Basic did not have any future (i.e.: pretty much sucked), and Java was the best thing out there. But there were the issues with Java on the desktop front - which they fixed with C#, so they had to extend it. Even today, except for Eclipse framework, the standard Java GUI APIs are real bad compared to C#/XAML.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.


However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.


As I said, Java was not an open standard (still not an ISO/ECMA standard AFAIK).


"Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't


You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.
"

Again the Anders factor here. Borland was good, while he was at the helm. They went down when he left, and they did not know what to do. I remember trying to use their express editions to come back, but they would not let two different versions (e.g.: C++, and C#) at the same. Then they stopped distributing free starter versions all together. Now look at the size of Delphi developers, and I feel real sad (I started actual programming with Turbo Pascal back in the day).

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Interesting post. Thanks ;)

I to used to spend a great deal of time developing in Turbo Pascal. Awesome IDE, awesome language ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You meant Java has no unsigned integers, or any unsigned numeric type.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.

It wasn't due to Java not being an open standard. The issue was Microsoft's breach of contract with Sun.

And it wasn't J++, it was Microsoft's Java. J++ was a result of that legal dispute.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


Anders Hejlsberg is a bad ass.

They should rename Denmark after him.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.


Java was never an established standard. It would be easier to argue that Java was invented to break established C++ standards.

But the real problem is that C++ was created to break ASM standards. And don't even get me started on what happened to the abacus.

Edited 2012-12-21 09:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move


It may have been a silly move, but it was to break single vendor lock in. Which OOXML was countering, and successfully countered. Result? Single vendor lock in!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


I can't speak about ASP.NET specifically, but the .NET is only just open enough to make some .NET applications barely run. However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.


Says you. The Mono team disagrees and has heavily praised Microsoft opening up the various ASP.NET stacks. They were integrated into the Mono codebase in days.

That is a textbook example of open source.


One great example of this is the DRM extensions; and thus the reason why Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


Yeah, because Netflix was going to take that sitting down, right? No.

For all the whining people do about DRM, they sure do clamor for it. Of course, the real reason is they need something to beat MS over the head with, and this is low hanging fruit.

Why don't you talk about instances where having Moonlight on Linux furthered the experience? The Olympics in Beijing being a major one, without Moonlight it wouldn't have been watchable on Linux, period.

Microsoft made documentation and test suites available to the Mono team ahead of time. Everything else is an ECMA standard.


What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


This is true, but I think the blame is overblown. At the time, and you need to be old enough to remember this, but Java was terrible when C# came out. It was still interpreted, for crying out loud.

C# came and provided clear and concise improvements, and more importantly, the tooling around C# was second to none. I mean, Anders was at the helm. He was the genius from Borland, Microsoft's major strategic win.


OOXML was written because MS wanted to lock people into MS Office but were forced to use an open standard by the EU.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do. Instead, they create their own incompatible standard that nobody else uses but them.


What does this matter? They're two competing standards (Nothing wrong with that) which have arguable strengths and weaknesses. Both which I think are slightly above either of us to get into too much detail for.

OOXML and ODF are massive, sprawling, complex formats. Its hard to standardize something like that correctly. ODF reflects design decisions made to better support OO and OOXML reflects design decisions made to better support Office.

WebGL is like the OOXML of the web. A "standard" (eh) made around the technological needs of a specific technology. Just like Microsoft rejects the OpenGLisms in WebGL, Open Office people reject the MS Office-isms in OOXML.


C# is another example of MS creating a new standard to trash an existing standard. In this case .NET was invented to trash Java (though C# / .NET has evolved since). What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


C# was a quantum leap over Java when it was released. Sincerely someone who used both at launch. PDC01 was a game changer. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

MS is damned if they do, damned if they don't. I guarantee you'd be the first one complaining if it wasn't an open standard.


If MS cared about standards, they'd have released a Sun Java compatible IDE like Borland had.


I hope you're joking. By the time .NET launched, Borland IDEs were floundering. I sincerely am questioning your recollection of events.


Firefox 1 & 2 were significantly more standard compliant than IE (hence why I used Phoenix & Firebird) and Firefox 3 was released in 2006. Plus there was Opera and kHTML-based browsers. Hell, even webkit was released in 2005, nearly half a decade before you claimed the competition began.


IE6s problem was not intentional deviation from standards. IE6 when released was the single most standards compliant browser. The problem arose from a lack of developer attention and a stagnation.

IE6 is what happens when IE implements a bunch of Working Draft standards. Microsoft is only guilty of virtually abandoning IE until Vista was released. That's five years.


So I really don't know where you pulled the '2009' figure from, but it's grossly inaccurate.


Browsers still weren't completely CSS2.1 compliant when IE8 came out, for fucks sake. People were still excited about browsers passing ACID2 and ACID3 tests.

News flash, all browsers have ridiculous quirks. IEs are just the most well known.

How about the 12 implementations of the Flexible Box module out there across all browsers. Is that adherence to standards?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Thu 20th Dec 2012 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Yeah, because Netflix was going to take that sitting down, right? No.

I don't follow that statement. The WINE work around was officially published by Netflix and the reason they use Silverlight is because MPAA demanded it.

I hope you're joking. By the time .NET launched, Borland IDEs were floundering. I sincerely am questioning your recollection of events.

Those are two unrelated points.
Yeah Borland were struggling at that point, but that doesn't mean that the languages themselves were bad; just that Borland's IDEs were sub-par. Given my point was about the language and run time environments used by MS, it's somewhat moot how good or bad Borlands IDE was. Though let's be honest, even as late as then, Borland were only sub-par to Visual Studio.

IE6s problem was not intentional deviation from standards.


I was talking about earlier versions of IE when I mentioned that.


Microsoft is only guilty of virtually abandoning IE until Vista was released. That's five years.

I'd already covered that.

MS killed the competition by implementing their own 'standards' in the mid 90s. Then left the market to stagnate for so long that the standards IE6 conformed to were out of date.

Browsers still weren't completely CSS2.1 compliant when IE8 came out, for fucks sake. People were still excited about browsers passing ACID2 and ACID3 tests.

News flash, all browsers have ridiculous quirks. IEs are just the most well known.

How about the 12 implementations of the Flexible Box module out there across all browsers. Is that adherence to standards?

I'd also raised those points as well. I'm not by any means saying that other browsers are not guilty. But IE has been the worst offender - by far.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 08:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

However closed so much that applications are buggy or even unusable because of major features being unavailable.

Netflix, Lovefilm and so on cannot run on Linux (albeit not without running native Windows libraries on WINE).


The applications are not buggy and only unusable because Netflix is not designed to work in Linux. The problem isn't .NET, it does exactly what it is supposed to.

What's more, .NET was invented because MS couldn't play ball with Java (see below).


If Java didn't run and look like crap in Windows then .NET never would have gained traction. Java is OK now but back then it looked awful. That's partly due to Sun insisting that it didn't use native controls or cleartype. Even today it still doesn't look great which is why it is rarely used for shinkwrap applications.

If Microsoft really cared about open standards, they'd have used ODF like nearly every one of their competitors do.


My experience leads me to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I agree that Microsoft does not care about open standards but the ODF was not built to handle everything in Excel. There would have been a conflict of interest regardless since MS would want the format designed around Office.

OOXML is an open standard, the issue is more that LibreOffice/OpenOffice developers do not care about providing 100% compatibility. I could even dig up a link where one of them states this explicitly.

What's more, .NET was only developed after MS got sued by Sun for releasing their own incompatible Java run times.


That goes back to Java running like crap in Windows, which was the fault of Sun. Windows developers were ready to embrace Java but Sun was stubborn about non-native controls and the JRE.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Others already explained that IE was the slowest to adopt standards, OOXML was used to subvert ODF and regarding OpenGL - let's see any kind of support for it on their Xbox and Windows RT. Whether it's OpenGL ES or full blown OpenGL is purely theoretical, since neither is supported there.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by bert64 on Wed 19th Dec 2012 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Firefox was always far more standards compliant than IE...
Their support for standards in earlier versions was limited not by a desire to lock people in but by shear practicality, with IE having as much marketshare as it did firefox needed compatibility, not implementing more standards that wouldn't have gotten used at the time anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You failed to address the "vendor lock-in" part.
Open source is not open standard.
Mono is far from being an alternative.

OOXML has so many "extensions"(read - blobs from the earlier Office formats) and even Microsoft does not implement OOXML fully.

Now look at actual viable alternatives and how Microsoft reacts to those...


But what am I saying... Microsoft fanboy will always come to defense.

Reply Score: 2

v W[p]8
by tomz on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:46 UTC
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

Not sure about the patenting, but the EU forced Microsoft to make a lot of protocols available to competitors.

And Samba team payed Microsoft 10.000 Euros to get access to that documentation:

http://fsfe.org/news/2007/news-20071220-01.en.html

On 11 dec. (so only couple of days ago) Samba 4 was released which implements a large number of Microsoft protocols and processes. Most of it was already reference engineered of course.

Which includes pretty much all the features Microsoft supports: different domain controller roles, Active Directory, LDAP, Kerberos, DNS, dynamic DNS updates, the SMB 2.0 and SMB 2.1 protocols included since Windows Vista and even experimental support the SMB 3.0 which is included in Windows Server 2012.

The SMB 3.0 protocol which was needed for Windows Server 2012 "Scale Out File Server" brings support for Active/Active and failover Fileserver support.

Which is something the Samba team already did since 2007 with the older SMB 1.x protocols. That is why when the Samba team went to Microsoft this year to do interability testing the Samba team could test code for SMB 3.0 they only created a day before they arrived and it worked.

Also the Linux 3.7 kernel released a couple of days ago also experimental client support for SMB 2.x, most of that code comes from the Samba developers of course.

Let's get back to E-mail and Exchange, the OpenChange project is a full Exchange replacement based on Samba 4 libraries/code.

Only a couple of days ago the OpenChange project completed most of the features by adding support for Active Sync/Outlook Anywhere by implementing the RFC over HTTP(S)*

Maybe Google had a contract with some company to provide them an implementation for ActiveSync and Google did not renew the contract because they knew they could use the above mentioned code if they needed to enable it again ?

Because of the Samba team you too can now see the protocol specification:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc243950%28v=prot.20~*~...

So yes, it isn't an open standard and there might be patent problems, but I doubt the problems are all that great now.

So thanks to the EU and the Samba and OpenChange teams the open source code exists (GPLv3 which has a special patents clause to help protect the innocent as well).

The Samba team even sends them notifications if documentation is wrong and Microsoft fixes the documentation.

I always love to hate Microsoft and Microsoft did not do this out of love, they were forced to. So I think we can still have them ;-)

But hey if people don't use Microsoft protocols it isn't a great loss, they usually suck. For example because of compatibility reasons Microsoft still uses crappy hashing for their password store:

http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/25-gpu-cluster-cracks-every...

* http://tracker.openchange.org/issues/42

Edited 2012-12-18 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 11

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

My uninformed guess would be that running Exchange Active Sync over open protocol is costly in term of processor time, bandwidth and maintenance , and as much money Google is getting from advertising to "free" user, Google probably did the math of using dev/server ops time and maintaining a protocol that is used by a small portion of their users ( which can still continue to access via the web client, and I guess that writing a notification client for gmail on windows phone is not that painful ).

And I agree that not supporting open protocol (as old as they are), is pretty much a pity for a mail client.
Example: if your company didn't invest in windows servers would you like your corporate to go through a 3rd party server.

So as good as microsoft softwares/servers/services are, there is something infuriating with shoving yet another service down your throat.

Reply Score: 4

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Plus let's not forget that Microsoft claims Android violences IP of them. They even get $ per sold unit from lots of the device-makers. Its known that there claim applies to at least there FAT32 long filename extension and protocols. Google tries to free Android from that Microsoft tax and legal risk associated with it.

USB mass-storage is being replaced by MTP and Microsoft propitary protocols are replaced with open standard protocols. Claiming Google tries to harm Microsoft AFTER they already supported Microsoft protocols, etc is not fair taken into account that supporting them results in that Microsoft tax what makes using Android more expensive and increases the legal risk and so goes against Google's interest to spread Android.

Let's face it. If being compatible with Microsoft means you need to pay them big money and make your strategy a risk then not being compatible with Microsoft but following and pushing open standards just makes lot of sense. No only from a business view but also from a morality view. The future belongs to us. Let's keep the future open.

Edited 2012-12-18 07:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Claiming Google tries to harm Microsoft AFTER they already supported Microsoft protocols, etc is not fair taken into account that supporting them results in that Microsoft tax what makes using Android more expensive and increases the legal risk and so goes against Google's interest to spread Android.


Google is still paying Microsoft licensing fees for EAS.

And will continue to do so, in order for Android to implement the Exchange Active Sync client.

Some handset vendors were handed injunctions over EAS, but they were for devices prior to 2009, when Google officially licensed the technology.

HTC, Motorola, etc. are OEMs that faced the repercussions of using unlicensed technology.


Let's face it. If being compatible with Microsoft means you need to pay them big money and make your strategy a risk then not being compatible with Microsoft but following and pushing open standards just makes lot of sense. No only from a business view but also from a morality view. The future belongs to us. Let's keep the future open.


Oh, please. Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They're not some small start up being crushed. Save the pity song for something believable. Google licenses plenty of other patents, as does Microsoft, as does basically every other player in the industry.

You can't just wish away patents, or licensing fees, nor are you implicitly protected because you use "open" standards. That's ridiculous.

Reply Score: 4

Switching
by bentoo on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:50 UTC
bentoo
Member since:
2012-09-21

Why is it so wrong with Microsoft profiting off of the development of their own closed (but almost universally accepted) standard? Is this so much worse then Google making proprietary modifications to open standards (i.e. IMAP) and profiting from the work of others?

BTW, I'm thinking about the Outlook.com move. I already use my SkyDrive for most of my online storage, might as well move my email there too.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switching
by Brendan on Tue 18th Dec 2012 01:37 UTC in reply to "Switching"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

Why is it so wrong with Microsoft profiting off of the development of their own closed (but almost universally accepted) standard? Is this so much worse then Google making proprietary modifications to open standards (i.e. IMAP) and profiting from the work of others?


Step 1: Use your monopoly in one area (OSs) to trick suckers into using your products (and your own closed standards)
Step 2: Use your closed standards to make it hard for users to switch to any competitors product (or, use vendor lock in to prevent fair competition)
Step 3: When anything happens that might convince users to leave anyway, try to get the suckers locked into a different product of yours that also prevents fair competition.

I can't see anything wrong here..

Edited 2012-12-18 01:37 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Switching
by bentoo on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Switching"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Step 1: Use your monopoly in one area (OSs) to trick suckers into using your products (and your own closed standards)
Step 2: Use your closed standards to make it hard for users to switch to any competitors product (or, use vendor lock in to prevent fair competition
Step 3: When anything happens that might convince users to leave anyway, try to get the suckers locked into a different product of yours that also prevents fair competition.


Nonsense. Nobody was forced to use EAS. EAS was widely adopted because it filled a much needed void in mobile email (i.e. limited bandwidth, email push, calendar/contact integration, etc.). I cannot see how licensing a protocol creates vendor lock-in. As we now know Google is turning it off so obviously they didn't feel locked-in as you say. In the end, Google turning off EAS may result in people leaving Google. Microsoft didn't have much to lose other than whatever small licensing fee (if any) they were getting.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Switching
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 02:35 UTC in reply to "Switching"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Is this so much worse then Google making proprietary modifications to open standards (i.e. IMAP) and profiting from the work of others?


What proprietary extensions? They're all documented
https://developers.google.com/google-apps/gmail/imap_extensions

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Switching
by chithanh on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Switching"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

They may be documented, but that still makes them non-standard proprietary extensions that Google can change on a whim.

That said, IMAP IDLE is a supported open standard that allows push, so no excuse for Microsoft shunning it.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Switching
by Soulbender on Tue 18th Dec 2012 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Switching"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but that still makes them non-standard proprietary extensions that Google can change on a whim.


Non-standard, Yes. Proprietary, no.
Google don't "own" these extensions and there are no licenses, restrictions or fees associated with implementing them.
Besides, many things now considered "standard" started out as non-standard.

It's also worth noting that IMAP was designed to be extensible.

Edited 2012-12-18 06:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Switching
by chithanh on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Switching"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

If you equate "public" with "open", then you may be correct.

I however like to think that "open" means that anybody can participate in the process of developing the protocol. This is not the case here, the protocol is decreed by Google.

Secrecy, fees (e.g. due to patent encumbrance) and such are sufficient conditions for being proprietary, but not necessary.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Switching
by Vanders on Tue 18th Dec 2012 10:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Switching"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I however like to think that "open" means that anybody can participate in the process of developing the protocol. This is not the case here, the protocol is decreed by Google.

No it isn't. It's IMAP. Google's extensions are defined by Google, but you're welcome to implement your own version of those extensions, or totally different extensions. You're also welcome to write an RFC based on those extension and submit it to the IETF, at which point they'd become "standard".

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Switching
by chithanh on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Switching"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

No it isn't. It's IMAP. Google's extensions are defined by Google, but you're welcome to implement your own version of those extensions, or totally different extensions. You're also welcome to write an RFC based on those extension and submit it to the IETF, at which point they'd become "standard".

I understand and don't dispute that. But in contrast to IMAP which is standardized by the IETF, nobody prevents Google to change their non-standard extensions in an incompatible way tomorrow, rendering your implementation useless. No process is in place that enables participation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Switching
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 18th Dec 2012 02:44 UTC in reply to "Switching"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I've been on outlook.com for months now. It is very good. Sweeping is a nice feature for setting up rules categorizing and filing mail simply by selecting a group of messages and saying "move all to <folder> and do it in the future"

Reply Score: 2

RE: Switching
by silviucc on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:31 UTC in reply to "Switching"
silviucc Member since:
2009-12-05

EAS is NOT a standard. It' just a proprietary technology that happens to be in use. Please point me to the specs of this standard so I can roll out my own stuff using it.

Less shilling please. Microsoft should really stop paying stupid propagandists to the detriment of real R&D. They employ smart people, maybe they should use them ?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Switching
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Switching"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29
RE[3]: Switching
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Switching"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

He actually cannot use it, since it's patented. And it's very much proprietary though documented.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Switching
by Nelson on Fri 21st Dec 2012 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Switching"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

He actually cannot use it, since it's patented. And it's very much proprietary though documented.


A standard can be patented. You know, like 3G.

Take a license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Switching
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Switching"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's neither a standard nor is Microsoft giving out those licenses left and right. Hence it's proprietary.

Edited 2012-12-22 00:51 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Wrong
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 03:44 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone supports IMAP.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wrong...
by gfolkert on Tue 18th Dec 2012 04:34 UTC in reply to "Wrong"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Windows Phone supports IMAP.

Ok, but does it currently support CalDav and CardDav? These are the pieces needed to be open, versus the EAS crap.

I await your Kool-Aid flavored answer.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Wrong...
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No. I never claimed it did, or disputed someone saying it didn't.

I think it's a miss that WP8 doesn't natively support Contact and Calendar syncing from say iCloud, something like that should be a scenario they aim for if they wish to convert people over to Windows Phone.

However, I only prefer it because its a migration path, I still find EAS to be superior because I actually value my device's battery life and enjoy true push.

That enough Kool-Aid for you ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wrong...
by gfolkert on Tue 18th Dec 2012 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong..."
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

However, I only prefer it because its a migration path, I still find EAS to be superior because I actually value my device's battery life and enjoy true push.

Huh, that is funny. I get notified through my Android Phone (Samsung Galaxy Nexus)... about e-mail or Calendar events added with about 3-5 seconds after they get to my "inbox"

People dislike it when I ask them if they've seen the calendar event or e-mail sent by others. It annoys them I get my e-mail faster and more reliably than they do.

I also have my phone last up to 90 hours per charge, at least 72 hours normally. I use it for SMS and e-mail and Skype and phone calls. Though phone calls and Skype tend to eat more battery.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong...
by Nelson on Wed 19th Dec 2012 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

You know what else is funny? Android uses proprietary push technology, not IMAP push.

So..about that Kool-Aid ? What flavor is yours?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong...
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

IMAP IDLE does not drain battery life, like you imply. I've been using it with my private email server and K9 for a while now. No battery issues.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wrong...
by Nelson on Fri 21st Dec 2012 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

That's nice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wrong...
by JAlexoid on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It is actually.

Reply Score: 2

800 lb Bull
by Baxtor44 on Tue 18th Dec 2012 05:21 UTC
Baxtor44
Member since:
2007-02-07

Microsoft is like a 800 lb Bull a little slow but they will win in the long run..

Reply Score: 0

RE: 800 lb Bull
by satan666 on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:34 UTC in reply to "800 lb Bull"
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

Microsoft is like a 800 lb Bull a little slow but they will win in the long run..

Wrong, Microsoft is like an 800 lb piece of shit. Lots of people eat it every day and are happy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 800 lb Bull
by gfolkert on Tue 18th Dec 2012 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: 800 lb Bull"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

"Microsoft is like a 800 lb Bull a little slow but they will win in the long run..

Wrong, Microsoft is like an 800 lb piece of shit. Lots of people eat it every day and are happy.
"
The best part about this... people have *NEVER* known any difference. This then begs the question: Do they know any better?

Obviously they do not. Since to someone eating crap all their life, would have problem tasting anything different and it would be rejected much like many Russian Kids reject Peanut Butter as its "wholly gross and tastes like effluent**"

**Not an exact translation, but you get the drift.

Reply Score: 2

Hate Vendor lock-in
by sisora on Tue 18th Dec 2012 05:38 UTC
sisora
Member since:
2011-08-26

I hate all the vendor-lock in created by companies especially Google, Microsoft, Oracle,Apple & IBM. These 5 companies crippled IT innovation for years and they are bringing back the old way of computing where every vendor have their own operating system, hardware, their own standards etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hate Vendor lock-in
by Neolander on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:02 UTC in reply to "Hate Vendor lock-in"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I hate all the vendor-lock in created by companies especially Google, Microsoft, Oracle,Apple & IBM. These 5 companies crippled IT innovation for years and they are bringing back the old way of computing where every vendor have their own operating system, hardware, their own standards etc.

Playing the devil's advocate, though, we probably wouldn't want to see a world where every standard is under the control of one single entity either. After all, the DVD and HDCP standards each emerged as the One True Standard of their realm at some point, and then everyone could see the result of this unification: unskippable ads, video disks that will only play reliably in one small part of the world, audio and video connectivity that requires an expensive and restrictive license to be implemented...

Edited 2012-12-18 08:14 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by sisora on Tue 18th Dec 2012 09:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate Vendor lock-in"
sisora Member since:
2011-08-26

I agree with you on that perspective. My concern is more about applications that you buy for one platform locks you in that platform forever. Then they make you buy more of their software or hardware. It applies to both consumer and enterprise apps these 5 companies create.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate Vendor lock-in"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

DVD and HDCP is actually a result of pressure from a lot of media companies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by Neolander on Fri 21st Dec 2012 06:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

DVD and HDCP is actually a result of pressure from a lot of media companies.

Indeed, but this kind of pressure can be applied much more easily if there is one single point of failure, such as a unique standard or standardization organism, than if there isn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hate Vendor lock-in
by chithanh on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:05 UTC in reply to "Hate Vendor lock-in"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

I hate all the vendor-lock in created by companies especially Google, Microsoft, Oracle,Apple & IBM.
Where is the vendor lock in at Google? You can export all your data in open formats and take it to a vendor of your choice.

Try that with Apple or Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate Vendor lock-in"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

What specifically is something I can't export from Outlook? I'm wondering. Stop with the hyperbole.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by gfolkert on Tue 18th Dec 2012 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

Exchange Events for the Calendar. (or whatever its called)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by chithanh on Wed 19th Dec 2012 18:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

What specifically is something I can't export from Outlook? I'm wondering. Stop with the hyperbole.
Let's compare apples with apples. Google data exists in the cloud and I can download almost all of it by visiting http://www.google.com/takeout

Please point me to the URL where I can download my data stored on the various Microsoft cloud services.

Before the Live toolbar, the preferred way to export your Hotmail contacts was to scrape them from the contact list.

From Microsoft desktop software you often get exports only in their proprietary formats or with loss of fidelity. For their drm-infested stuff (XBox, Zune, ...) often nothing at all can be exported.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Hate Vendor lock-in
by sisora on Tue 18th Dec 2012 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Hate Vendor lock-in"
People have got the wrong idea
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:12 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

To understand fully the extent of what Google is doing here, it is important to understand the journey that's led them to this point.

Google has licensed EAS. That means they at one point determined the EAS, not the DAV suite, fit the needs of users over what was available at the time.

Things change, and now Google feels that IMAP+*DAV is a better solution so they're transitioning. Granted, it's a rocky transition (Really, a few months notice? Stupid.), but it is one they're going through nonetheless.

This isn't Google moving to an open protocol, this is Google directly attacking Microsoft once the deck was stacked enough. If Google did not have Android, it wouldn't have the cojones to just shut out EAS.

So there's a lot of ways to read this: Google wanting to end free business services, save on licensing, injure Microsoft, etc.

I think its a little of each, but it isn't because Google had some sort of open standard loving epiphany. That's sort of pie in the sky.

Anyhow, I think Microsoft saw this coming. On Windows Phone 7, Gmail is automatically set up to use EAS to sync Contacts/Tasks/Calendar/Email

On WP8, Gmail uses IMAP..which caused a pretty nasty bug earlier this year (presumably due to Google's weird IMAP implementation, that some in these comments refuse to acknowledge exists). People have been dogging Google's IMAP implementation for years, but apparently its all head in the sand around here..

Reply Score: 2

RE: People have got the wrong idea
by l3v1 on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:18 UTC in reply to "People have got the wrong idea"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyhow, I think Microsoft saw this coming.


If that were so, they'd have implemented the stupid protocols and this whole thing would be a non-issue. So if they saw it coming, that means they chose not to implement, which is a somewhat different move. I'd say, based on the number of their phone sales, a bad one.

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

"Anyhow, I think Microsoft saw this coming.


If that were so, they'd have implemented the stupid protocols and this whole thing would be a non-issue. So if they saw it coming, that means they chose not to implement, which is a somewhat different move. I'd say, based on the number of their phone sales, a bad one.
"

I don't think its a given, it may have been late enough in the dev cycle to be a no-go. I just can't imagine Google, a huge Microsoft EAS licensee doing something like this without giving prior notice. Corporations don't operate in a vacuum like that.

Windows Phone sales have been modest and picking up Quarter over Quarter for like a year. Windows Phone app vendors have seen explosions in app sales since Windows Phone 8 launched. There is clear momentum behind the platform. A fact many here conveniently refuse to acknowledge.

By all means, continue the meme though.

Reply Score: 1

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows Phone sales have been modest and picking up Quarter over Quarter for like a year.


Sure, but it's easy to double your sales QonQ when you're bumping along the bottom at 1-2% of the market.

Windows Phone app vendors have seen explosions in app sales since Windows Phone 8 launched.


When you start at 0 the only way is up, after all.

There is clear momentum behind the platform.


There's no evidence that there is any more real, consumer driven momentum behind WP8 than any of their previous mobile platforms, or that there is behind BlackBerry OS, or Meego, or WebOS. That is because currently the platform is an also-ran and it's userbase is counted under "Other", below RIM.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Sure, but it's easy to double your sales QonQ when you're bumping along the bottom at 1-2% of the market.


So? Does that mean that sales are not increasing? The fact that Microsoft is keeping up with the market, and then some, by making small inroads on a region by region basis, is impressive.

No one serious thinks Windows Phone will overnight take the world by storm, but judging from Microsoft in the past, it is a silly bet to bet against them eventually having some sort of presence.

Like I said, people told them to dump Xbox when it was bleeding cash at Entertainment & Devices. Xbox is now one of the shining examples of Microsoft establishing a relevant brand "post-Windows".


When you start at 0 the only way is up, after all.


Do you have evidence to support that every single app developer who's seen a dramatic increase in sales started at zero? No. Because you'd rather use hyperbole to get a zinger in instead of having a sensible discussion.

I personally know people who've made, and continue to make great money on the platform. Between Windows Phone and Windows 8, the revenue has given me more financial freedom than I've had in years.

It is a bald faced lie that Windows Phone and Windows Store both have low download counts, and bring in a small amount of revenue.


There's no evidence that there is any more real, consumer driven momentum behind WP8 than any of their previous mobile platforms, or that there is behind BlackBerry OS, or Meego, or WebOS. That is because currently the platform is an also-ran and it's userbase is counted under "Other", below RIM.


There's no evidence..if you conveniently ignore the evidence like you have.

Reply Score: 1

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

So? Does that mean that sales are not increasing?


Oh certainly, sales are increasing. I just object to people trotting out the same tired and twisted stats like it matters. WebOS had two amazing quarters of growth, but that particular statistic is meaningless. It's total devices that matters, and Windows Phone 8 doesn't matter.

The fact that Microsoft is keeping up with the market


But they're not. WP8 market share is lower than WP7 market share was. It remains to be seen if they'll ever regain the heady heights of the 3-4% market share the had back then.

Do you have evidence to support that every single app developer who's seen a dramatic increase in sales started at zero?


They all did. No one was selling Windows Phone 8 apps until Windows Phone 8 launched. Again, a "dramatic increase" is a meaningless statistic. Actual, hard figures.

"
There's no evidence that there is any more real, consumer driven momentum behind WP8 than any of their previous mobile platforms


There's no evidence..if you conveniently ignore the evidence like you have.
"
Where is it then? Windows Phone 8 hasn't even been out long enough to show up on any market research; what's there is dumped under "Other" along with Meego and WebOS. You have no evidence of anything related to WP8 because the data simply doesn't exist yet.

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29



Oh certainly, sales are increasing. I just object to people trotting out the same tired and twisted stats like it matters. WebOS had two amazing quarters of growth, but that particular statistic is meaningless. It's total devices that matters, and Windows Phone 8 doesn't matter.


Sequential growth is also important. QoQ growth for Windows Phone has been steady.

I was replying to the statement that Microsoft has sold no phones. If you're in agreement with me that they have sold phones, then your comment is meaningless besides to toss a few zingers out.


But they're not. WP8 market share is lower than WP7 market share was. It remains to be seen if they'll ever regain the heady heights of the 3-4% market share the had back then.


That's ridiculous. WP7 and WP8 marketshare is to be viewed as just Windows Phone. Or do you count iOS5 marketshare as just iOS5?

Windows Phone 7 devices are still being announced, sold, and marketed all over the world.



They all did. No one was selling Windows Phone 8 apps until Windows Phone 8 launched. Again, a "dramatic increase" is a meaningless statistic. Actual, hard figures.


The increase I'm talking about is for Windows Phone 7 applications in general, since Windows Phone 8 has been released (and if you didn't know, can run WP7 apps)


Where is it then? Windows Phone 8 hasn't even been out long enough to show up on any market research; what's there is dumped under "Other" along with Meego and WebOS. You have no evidence of anything related to WP8 because the data simply doesn't exist yet


My statement isn't exclusive to the WP8 launch, I merely included the app statistics as an indicator of WP8's impact, since like you said, it's too early to do it otherwise.

However, you can look at Windows Phone 7 sales and see a clear acceleration.

There's also a ramp up in Marketplace submissions (up 40%) and the pace at which the Market has grown has increased (and it was already the fastest growing Ecosystem before Windows 8 launched).

Marketshare is somewhat of a lagging indicator in my opinion, but the handset is undoubtedly in many, many more hands than it was even a year ago. That's my entire point, so I'm a little puzzled at the reasoning behind your comment.

Reply Score: 2

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I was replying to the statement that Microsoft has sold no phones. If you're in agreement with me that they have sold phones, then your comment is meaningless besides to toss a few zingers out.


I was replying to your poor grasp of statistics.


WP7 and WP8 marketshare is to be viewed as just Windows Phone. Or do you count iOS5 marketshare as just iOS5?


There's no upgrade path from WP7 to WP8; users have to literally throw away their WP7 device and get a new WP8 device, hence I consider them different things and count them separately. You're free to disagree.


However, you can look at Windows Phone 7 sales and see a clear acceleration.

There's also a ramp up in Marketplace submissions (up 40%) and the pace at which the Market has grown has increased (and it was already the fastest growing Ecosystem before Windows 8 launched).


Maybe I should be clearer: please stop using relative statistics as any meaningful indicator of the absolute success of Windows Phone in the market place. A 40% increase in app submissions isn't very interesting. A 200% or 300% increase might be interesting, as that would indicate rapid growth: 40% is just "growth" and even the WebOS app market managed to grow.

Marketshare is somewhat of a lagging indicator in my opinion, but the handset is undoubtedly in many, many more hands than it was even a year ago. That's my entire point, so I'm a little puzzled at the reasoning behind your comment.


Again, my complaint is that you're using relative growth as an indicator. Of course Windows Phone handsets are in "many more hands" than a year ago: WP7 hadn't even been out all that long at the beginning of last year! That's called "growth", and while it's nice, it's not spectacular or interesting growth.

In the same time frame that Windows Phone has reached "many more hands", iOS and Android have shipped hundreds of millions of new devices. There is no evidence at all that Windows Phone has had even the slightest impact on the Android or iOS markets, and without that impact it's always going to be an also-ran, lumped under "Other" at the bottom of the chart.

Reply Score: 4

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I personally know people who've made, and continue to make great money on the platform. Between Windows Phone and Windows 8, the revenue has given me more financial freedom than I've had in years.

Uh huh. ROTFL. At least we know who you are now and we've established your credibility rating - zero.

It is a bald faced lie that Windows Phone and Windows Store both have low download counts, and bring in a small amount of revenue.

Regardless of what you believe in your fantasy world, the Windows Phone market is miniscule next to that of Android and iOS. You don't know of anyone making 'great money' off it because it simply isn't viable.

Android's app market was a long, long way behind iOS's for many, many years (still is in some ways) before it got some critical mass to the point where it became viable for apps to be developed for it.

The brutal truth is that there is no room whatsoever for a third platform. Any developers that are ignoring hard economics on that are living in a sad, strange little world.

Reply Score: 2

RE: People have got the wrong idea
by NeoX on Tue 18th Dec 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "People have got the wrong idea"
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

Agree with you here. This is just another crummy who cares about the customer move by google. They have done this plenty of times by dropping services and access to many other technologies that people got used to before. And they historically do not give you any transition time. A month is a joke.

I love this part of the headlined article:

It seems like Microsoft still thinks it's the number one technology company, with the ability to dictate the industry. Those days are gone, and Microsoft will have to learn to adopt other people's technologies - without being forced.


My question is isn't Google the new Microsoft? Are they not trying to dictate the industry by making these moves? Or is it ok because they like to use Open Standards? If EAS is in place and fills a need for a customer who cares if it is closed source.

I really don't get it. Google is acting just like MS here and no one seems to see it...

Edited 2012-12-19 00:10 UTC

Reply Score: 0

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Or is it ok because they like to use Open Standards?


Yes. It's certainly infinitely better, certainly.

Reply Score: 3

integration or fragmentation
by l3v1 on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:16 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

All this is just going backwards. Instead of going for more seamless and tighter integration - from the users' points of view - for e-mail services, company interests pollute our landscape. To be fair, Google at least doesn't just pull out, they leave a way out, which unfortunately is dependent on Microsoft implementing the open protocols. Which is always a lottery-guess at best. So now Microsoft tries to pull users away, who depend on activesync, which is both an opportunity and a failure. Opportunity to build a "private" user base, failure since it shows MS to be as rigid and un-flexible towards adapting to changes as always. Changes, that in this case, at least IMHO, are good. But I'm fairly skewed here, since I don't depend on activesync. However, all things considered, this whole thing is bad for a number of users, and depdnding on their "affiliation" they can blame either Google or Microsoft, result being they'll have to consider activesync capability as a requirement for their next phone purchase.

Reply Score: 4

RE: integration or fragmentation
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 08:27 UTC in reply to "integration or fragmentation"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

All this is just going backwards. Instead of going for more seamless and tighter integration - from the users' points of view - for e-mail services, company interests pollute our landscape. To be fair, Google at least doesn't just pull out, they leave a way out, which unfortunately is dependent on Microsoft implementing the open protocols. Which is always a lottery-guess at best. So now Microsoft tries to pull users away, who depend on activesync, which is both an opportunity and a failure. Opportunity to build a "private" user base, failure since it shows MS to be as rigid and un-flexible towards adapting to changes as always. Changes, that in this case, at least IMHO, are good. But I'm fairly skewed here, since I don't depend on activesync. However, all things considered, this whole thing is bad for a number of users, and depdnding on their "affiliation" they can blame either Google or Microsoft, result being they'll have to consider activesync capability as a requirement for their next phone purchase.


Its one thing to come up with a better protocol and want Microsoft to implement it. But IMAP/CalDAV/CardDAV don't come close to matching EAS (except in some specific cases where Contacts fucking rock using DAV, my friend's iCloud set up is sick) .

In the end, this is a specific issue to a specific subset of power user. Most people don't care about "Push this" or "Pull that" or "Sync this".

The normal layman doesn't care about all that. Microsoft could just as easily write an adapter to import Contacts into EAS and side-step the entire issue altogether without implementing a thing.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Tue 18th Dec 2012 10:32 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

I think that to actually understand Microsoft [or any other huge software player on the market - like Apple, etc] is to realize, that they absolutely don't care about established standards, the way of doing things. They perceive themselves as the pioneers in revolution. Changing the phones into iPhones, changing "user interface experience" from the "old and ineffective" to the "new and effective" with Metro UI, etc. They are so close-minded with their "revolutionary" and not "evolutionary" thinking, that they end up being arrogant and ignorant to everything that didn't come out of their own minds. They simply believe that this will give them more money.
The best way to change is is actually to not use it. That's the only type of pressure they will understand. Vote with you own wallets. If you buy something, if you click on EULA - you are in fact AGREEING to all of this nonsense, whether it's Microsoft, Apple, Google, or anything else.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 11:27 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

So get this right Thom, Google drop support for EAS for non paying customers and you are saying that they are wrong to advertise that they support the same features for free on their own service.

OKAY!

Edited 2012-12-18 11:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 11:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So get this right Thom, Google drop support for EAS for non paying customers and you are saying that they are wrong to advertise that they support the same features for free on their own service.

OKAY!


I'm not saying they are wrong for advertising their own products. I'm saying they are wrong for not actually addressing the very real customer issue that's about to come up.

Quite the difference.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Why should they?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Have you heard of "That's not your fault, but it is your problem"?
Here lies Microsoft - not addressing customers' needs and issues.

Microsoft is a statistical error in the smartphone arena. Their customers aren't going to switch to Outlook.com just because Microsoft says and there's nothing keeping people on WP8 versus iOS or Android.

So unless they address the issue in a less arrogant manner, they are not going going anywhere in the smartphone market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Adurbe on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue to the customer has been caused by Google in this instance, not MS.

MS/Nokia are currently pushing WP8 as a corporate device which can be linked into your current infrastructure.

More and more UK articles are seemingly discussing the platform in this light. No idea as of yet if this is converting into Real corporate customers, but perception is half the battle in these things.

Google changing their implementation with such short notice just when BYOD is starting to gain real traction seems baffling.

GMail ISNT in "beta" anymore, companies lose trust when a 3rd party suddenly breaks their systems. Especially if it involves the CEO's shiny new toy....

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FYI: GApps for Business will continue to support EAS. So most of your comment is baseless. Only free users will not be able to setup EAS connections.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone is positioned as enterprise friendly, in enterprises, EAS is almost ubiquitous.

EAS is an "open" standard by virtue that you can implement it if you pay a royalty bearing license, it is not free, but it is not a black box either. If you're willing to play ball (Like Samba does, and yes, even Google still does) you can interoperate.

It is not unreasonable to expect Microsoft to want to make money off of a technology, that still, to this day, is better than the alternative. Like I said, I'd have absolutely no problem with this if IMAP+CalDAV and CardDAV provided anywhere near the same level of functionality, but even with IMAP Idle (Which I doubt many very OS vendors implement anyway) its rubbish. Its not true push, more like long polling.

With that said, I also think its important to highlight the fact that Outlook.com doesn't sacrifice user experience over politics. It is unbelievable that Google has given their consumers such a raw deal.

Google: Hey, we know you love your Ferrari, but we've got this cool, open, standard Unicycle for you to try!
User: Uh, what?
Google: Yeah, it's great. That's the alternative. A unicycle. It'll get you from A to B just like your Ferrari.
Google: Oh, and by the way, we've just sold your Ferrari for you. Its not open enough, you won't ever need that anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by tylerdurden on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17


With that said, I also think its important to highlight the fact that Outlook.com doesn't sacrifice user experience over politics. It is unbelievable that Google has given their consumers such a raw deal.


Huh? does outlook.com implement POP or IMAP yet? It didn't as of a couple of months ago. That seems like a pretty hefty "sacrifice" for a lot of users and their experience.

Edited 2012-12-18 19:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Outlook.com has always supported POP. Microsoft has confirmed IMAP support is coming to Outlook.com

Also, it seems Microsoft may be bringing ActiveSync to the Mac.

Seems like they're taking a multi-pronged approach, which is refreshing. If they implement CardDAV And CalDAV it'll be perfect. Here's hoping.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by tylerdurden on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Microsoft explicitly discourages the use of POP/SMTP on their outlook.com service, and they don't guarantee their pop server will be there in the future. The only thing that Microsoft has said about IMAP support is that they may or may not support it at some point in the future or ever. And then there is the matter of CalDav, etc. So yeah, Microsoft plays politics just like everybody else.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Nelson on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They've explicitly said IMAP support is coming.

The fact of the matter is that once it does come, Microsoft will support EAS, POP, and IMAP. The only missing piece of the puzzle will be the DAV suite. Which I've already said I hope they change their tune on.

The difference being that Microsoft isn't displacing prospective IMAP users, because there was never the expectation that it would be there prior to their announcement.

The equivalent of what Google did would be Microsoft dumping EAS and moving to IMAP with a 2month migration Window. That is irresponsible on Google's part.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by tylerdurden on Tue 18th Dec 2012 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I know it is traditional for microsofties to equate "vapor/vague promise" with "shipping product/feature." But come on...

I hate to repeat myself; microsoft haven't provided a time table or any sort of corporate commitment for IMAP support. Furthermore their POP support is flaky and its use is discouraged explicitly (in the actual meaning of the word). And there is ZERO support for DAV suite, unless you use 3rd party plugins. So if my mail user experience depends on protocols that are not proprietary to microsoft, I'm basically shit out of luck with outlook.com. Which flies directly in the face of your narrative.


PS. You keep using that term "the fact of the matter" which does not mean what you want it to mean: "your personal opinion on the matter."

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 01:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Existing connections will still function. They are not shutting down the service. New connections will not be available after Jan

Reply Score: 2

boing
Member since:
2007-05-22

I have read multiple comments on this subject over the last several days, and I don't understand why so many people are twisting the facts, and so upset. Here are the facts:

1) ActiveSync will be discontinued only for new Google Sync connections. It will continue to work for Ad based (or what people call "FREE") accounts that already have a connection setup. It will not just "break" for existing connections. So what you have will continue to work without issues.
2) If you are a company, and if you purchase the business edition you will still have ActiveSync. So companies that use some of their profits to purchase a business account will be unaffected.
3) IMAP does do PUSH (IMAP IDLE), and it is not as inefficient as everyone goes on about. This is an old white paper but a good read: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html
4) Google has to license each ActiveSync connection. This means they have to pay Microsoft for each connection they support.

So what is the issue? These are "free" accounts, which Google has to pay for. Maybe they decided they could make more money (or Ads were making less for them) by removing the ActiveSync licensing and using open standards. If you are a "free" account user, then I am sure if you want to remain free and use sync for new connections, then implementing CalDAV and CardDAV should not be an issue.

I am "not" a fan of Google, but I do think what Google is doing is a good choice. The real issue is that Microsoft needs to support CalDAV and CardDAV, or open up the ActiveSync protocol. I think they will be forced to do something eventually, just as IE was forced to be more standards complaint. If more companies remove ActiveSync support like Google, Microsoft will be forced to make a move sooner rather then later. Microsoft being forced to do something is not always a bad thing (IE10, .NET, IIS & PHP, etc..). Another good example of this sort of thing happening is Adobe and FLASH, and how they have been forced to adapt to a more standards approach.

Open standards are a good thing.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


1) ActiveSync will be discontinued only for new Google Sync connections. It will continue to work for Ad based (or what people call "FREE") accounts that already have a connection setup. It will not just "break" for existing connections. So what you have will continue to work without issues.


The issue is that existing configurations, for say, new devices, pre-configure GMail to use EAS because it is a simpler solution to roll out, and because it integrates nicely into the enterprise.

So while no current users are affected, people now have to scramble to alter the way they configure Gmail accounts. For example, on Windows Phone 7, Gmail accounts are auto set up to use Google Sync with EAS.

Meaning after the cut off date, any WP device that comes with Gmail must be reconfigured or it will not work out of the box. That's a breaking experience.


2) If you are a company, and if you purchase the business edition you will still have ActiveSync. So companies that use some of their profits to purchase a business account will be unaffected.


For now. That's the really worrying part to business I'd imagine. It must be absolutely horrifying that Google even flirts with the idea of ditching EAS.


3) IMAP does do PUSH (IMAP IDLE), and it is not as inefficient as everyone goes on about. This is an old white paper but a good read: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html


When resources are at a premium, say on a mobile device, "not as inefficient" doesn't really cut it.

IMAP IDLE is flawed in that respect. It becomes increasingly more demanding to receive push emails (Never mind the fact that the e-mail isn't even downloaded in the background like EAS)

Saying its an alternative to ActiveSync Push is foolish.


I am "not" a fan of Google, but I do think what Google is doing is a good choice. The real issue is that Microsoft needs to support CalDAV and CardDAV, or open up the ActiveSync protocol. I think they will be forced to do something eventually, just as IE was forced to be more standards complaint.


I agree with implementing CalDAV and CardDAV, if only for completeness. The ActiveSync protocol is open, its just royalty encumbered. You pay to play. That's different from not being able to play at all.


If more companies remove ActiveSync support like Google, Microsoft will be forced to make a move sooner rather then later. Microsoft being forced to do something is not always a bad thing (IE10, .NET, IIS & PHP, etc..). Another good example of this sort of thing happening is Adobe and FLASH, and how they have been forced to adapt to a more standards approach.

Open standards are a good thing.


Maybe. I just don't see it happening. There is no good replacement for EAS yet. I think maybe once better IMAP extensions become more mainstream..then we could revisit this conversation but I have a huge problem with degrading the experience for the sake of open standards.

Come up with something better, don't just stand on the shoulders of the fact that a standard is open.

Reply Score: 1

boing Member since:
2007-05-22

"
The issue is that existing configurations, for say, new devices, pre-configure GMail to use EAS because it is a simpler solution to roll out, and because it integrates nicely into the enterprise.

So while no current users are affected, people now have to scramble to alter the way they configure Gmail accounts. For example, on Windows Phone 7, Gmail accounts are auto set up to use Google Sync with EAS.

Meaning after the cut off date, any WP device that comes with Gmail must be reconfigured or it will not work out of the box. That's a breaking experience.


Yes I do agree EAS is a easier solution to setup on a mobile device. Yes you are correct, "free" users will have to setup their devices in another way for future connections, but then again its a free account so putting some of your time in to adapt doesn't seem to far fetched. As far as Windows Phone, looks like Microsoft needs to support CalDav and CardDAV. Android and iOS already support this, so it looks like Microsoft is behind the curve here since Android and iOS are the majority of the phone market OS'es. So it is only "breaking" Windows Phone. My suggestion is current Windows Phone users move over to Outlook.com or scream to have Microsoft support CalDAV and CardDAV like Google, Apple, and just any other small business hosting company.


2) If you are a company, and if you purchase the business edition you will still have ActiveSync. So companies that use some of their profits to purchase a business account will be unaffected.


For now. That's the really worrying part to business I'd imagine. It must be absolutely horrifying that Google even flirts with the idea of ditching EAS.


We can't speculate the future, I am looking at now, and right now paid users get EAS. No issue here if you are a company and pay for the services.


3) IMAP does do PUSH (IMAP IDLE), and it is not as inefficient as everyone goes on about. This is an old white paper but a good read: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html


When resources are at a premium, say on a mobile device, "not as inefficient" doesn't really cut it.

IMAP IDLE is flawed in that respect. It becomes increasingly more demanding to receive push emails (Never mind the fact that the e-mail isn't even downloaded in the background like EAS)

Saying its an alternative to ActiveSync Push is foolish.


If resources are at a premium, I think people have more to worry about then IMAP IDLE. Best to start looking at apps running services in the background (Facebook, Twitter, etc..). Funny a person (not saying you) might worry about IMAP IDLE, but then run a ton of apps with services running in the background. Actually I do think IMAP IDLE is "acceptable", even if it costs me a little more battery as compared to the proprietary solution from Microsoft.

I never said IMAP is an alternative to ActiveSync, BUT I do think IMAP (with IMAP IDLE), CalDAV, and CardDAV IS an alternative to ActiveSync. It might not be the most efficient alternative, but never the less, it is an alternative which I find acceptable. So for you to say IMAP (with IDLE)+CalDAV+DalDAV is not an alternative to ActiveSYNC would be just as foolish.


I agree with implementing CalDAV and CardDAV, if only for completeness. The ActiveSync protocol is open, its just royalty encumbered. You pay to play. That's different from not being able to play at all.


Exactly, and Google decided not to pay to play for their "free" accounts. If someone has a problem with this and MUST use ActiveSync, then go use Outlook.com. Makes sense to use the email solution from the vender who offers the proprietary paid license solution.


If more companies remove ActiveSync support like Google, Microsoft will be forced to make a move sooner rather then later. Microsoft being forced to do something is not always a bad thing (IE10, .NET, IIS & PHP, etc..). Another good example of this sort of thing happening is Adobe and FLASH, and how they have been forced to adapt to a more standards approach.

Open standards are a good thing.

Maybe. I just don't see it happening. There is no good replacement for EAS yet. I think maybe once better IMAP extensions become more mainstream..then we could revisit this conversation but I have a huge problem with degrading the experience for the sake of open standards.

Come up with something better, don't just stand on the shoulders of the fact that a standard is open.


As I said earlier, there is a replacement for EAS, and that is IMAP (with IDLE), CalDav, and CardDav. Is this the best solution, no. Then again a lot of "free" software is not the best solution, but it is an acceptable solution (such as OpenOffice vs Microsoft Office). If you want to pay for a better solution, then go purchase it. If the company that makes the better solution offers you free use of that solution if you use their services, then go use their services.

Personally I find IMAP (with IDLE), CalDal, and CardDav acceptable and is what I use. The good thing is if everyone adopts these open standards I can connect to anybody's service. So it sounds like I got more choice going the open standard route.
"

Reply Score: 2

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

...looks like Microsoft needs to support CalDav and CardDAV. Android and iOS already support this...


Wrong (for Android at least).

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=7639

Edited 2012-12-18 20:42 UTC

Reply Score: 1

boing Member since:
2007-05-22

"...looks like Microsoft needs to support CalDav and CardDAV. Android and iOS already support this...


Wrong (for Android at least).

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=7639
"

Looks like I stand corrected, thanks. Given the fact that Google is removing EAS and just added CardDav, I am sure they will push that missing support very quickly. Makes no sense they would pull EAS, and offer alternatives which they don't even support in their own Android OS. Bad Google for that and the short notice on pulling EAS.

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Fair enough, I think your positions are completely sensible. I think we differ a little bit, but its been more productive than not having a discussion with you.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 2

boing Member since:
2007-05-22

Fair enough, I think your positions are completely sensible. I think we differ a little bit, but its been more productive than not having a discussion with you.

Cheers.


I try to be as sensible as possible, which I know is not always easy on the forums. Actually I don't post very often but I decided to speak out of this since I have been reading so much about it recently. I always enjoy the various perspectives, even if we might differ in views.

I noticed your previous comment with the "**" being for Android users. The funny thing is, even though I support Google's choice on this, I am not a fan of Google, and don't use any of their services except for owning a Android phone. Even more, I don't like Android and looking to move to something new in the near future. The only current alternative I see right now for me to Android is the iPhone, because it has the apps I currently use on Android. Windows Phone (I do like the Lumia 920) doesn't have enough apps yet. The one I am looking at with curiosity is the new Blackberry 10. I like the fact it can run Android 2.3 apps, so it will be interesting to see if the developers repackage their Android apps for Blackberry store. If that happens it looks like I might go with Blackberry 10 since I will be able to continue with some of the same apps I already use.

Cheers.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Meaning after the cut off date, any WP device that comes with Gmail must be reconfigured or it will not work out of the box. That's a breaking experience.

Of a competing platform's unauthorized use.
That's still Microsoft's problem and a brilliant move on Google's part(though not promoting competition, but we know of Google's views on Microsoft).


For now. That's the really worrying part to business I'd imagine. It must be absolutely horrifying that Google even flirts with the idea of ditching EAS.

Now that is pure FUD. Paying customers are paying customers and they will get what they need. Google has only expanded the services for their GApps for Business users.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue is that existing configurations, for say, new devices, pre-configure GMail to use EAS because it is a simpler solution to roll out, and because it integrates nicely into the enterprise.

It doesn't 'integrate nicely into the enterprise'. It's required for use by Exchange because it's impossible to get what people want out of Exchange any other way. That's it.

So while no current users are affected, people now have to scramble to alter the way they configure Gmail accounts. For example, on Windows Phone 7, Gmail accounts are auto set up to use Google Sync with EAS.

No one gives a shit about what happens on a Windows Phone quite frankly. I'm also afraid that the market share isn't there to push enough users into getting Outlook.com addresses.

Microsoft, and you, have this false sense of security that they are in a position of strength but in reality the only position of strength Microsoft have - the enterprise, i.e. Exchange lock-in - is in reality being surrounded by a far larger userbase.

Meaning after the cut off date, any WP device that comes with Gmail must be reconfigured or it will not work out of the box. That's a breaking experience.

No one cares. Microsoft knows what they can do if they want to fix it. Google could write something for Windows Phone I suppose but I doubt it's worth even a couple of hours of their time given the number of users it affects.

For now. That's the really worrying part to business I'd imagine. It must be absolutely horrifying that Google even flirts with the idea of ditching EAS.

They will, once Exchange is effectively dead. Until then there are no such worries.

Reply Score: 2

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

3) IMAP does do PUSH (IMAP IDLE), and it is not as inefficient as everyone goes on about. This is an old white paper but a good read: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html


Then why doesn't Google support it on Android?

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=23971

Reply Score: 1

boing Member since:
2007-05-22

"3) IMAP does do PUSH (IMAP IDLE), and it is not as inefficient as everyone goes on about. This is an old white paper but a good read: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html


Then why doesn't Google support it on Android?

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=23971
"

Now this is a VERY good question I wish I knew the answer to. Actually the only default mobile mail client I know from the past that supported IMAP IDLE is Blackberry. Personally I think all of default mobile mail clients should support IMAP IDLE (Are you listening Microsoft, Google, and Apple).

The good thing about Android and other OS'es is that the 3rd party apps pick up the slack. In the case of Android I use "K-9 Mail" (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsck.k9). I actually find "K-9 Mail" much better then the default Google mail client because it supports many more features including IMAP IDLE.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its a of "do as I say, not as I do"

"Hey we think everyone should use open protocols**"


** Except us on Android, because we recognize the inherent limitations of IMAP, so we engineer around it using proprietary protocols.

Reply Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

What proprietary protocol is google using in this case?

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Google Sync.

Android does not implement IMAP Idle.

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Google Sync is (or was) a service no?

Edited 2012-12-19 02:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

There's some confusion I think because Google calls their EAS implementation Google Sync as well. Its all Google Sync, I think.

I think now that they've made their statement, they're glad to see the Google Sync name disappear and silently switch Android over to some IMAP push extension (That doesn't suck like IMAP Idle) in the future.

Reply Score: 2

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Using IDLE in K9 is an absolute battery life killer. Don't do it. It wakes up the system every time an email comes in. If you have any sort of email volume the phone never gets to sleep.

I find it is far more efficient to just use polling once each hour. It is email not instant messaging. If they wanted instant responses they'd have used some other message system. Like, say, a phone call.

Reply Score: 2

People have missed the basics.
by oiaohm on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 04:43 UTC
oiaohm
Member since:
2009-05-30

http://davmail.sourceforge.net/
This exists there is no need to use activesync to interface with MS exchange servers.

Also https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nitrodesk.droid20.... is free. So you still do have an activesync client for Android.

Also please remember Microsoft wants to be paid for providing activesync. http://thoughtsofanidlemind.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/google-winter-...

None of Microsoft code is used Google side.

Reply Score: 2