Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Windows The Verge has a learned a few interesting things about Google deprecating EAS and how this will affect Windows Phone users. As it turns out, Google informed Microsoft it was planning to remove EAS in the summer of last year, but without giving a firm date. Microsoft has been trying to get a six-month extension from Google, but so far with no luck. In the meantime, Microsoft is also working on adding CardDAV and CalDAV support to Windows Phone - so yay open standards.
Order by: Score:
they gave notice, thats nice
by Adurbe on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:31 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

So after all that... Google are still removing something that users rely on and a software company missed a deadline.

Still not a fan of Google's actions with relation to Windows phones, even With notice they are not making it easy for us users!

Reply Score: 2

RE: they gave notice, thats nice
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:39 UTC in reply to "they gave notice, thats nice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Blame Microsoft. They could have opened EAS up, or supported the open DAV standards from day one, like Apple did. Apparently, they knew since last summer, and still no patch? Pathetic.

They brought this unto themselves - and I use Gmail on my 8X.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: they gave notice, thats nice
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE: they gave notice, thats nice"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

EAS is open and documented.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

EAS is not open. To use it, you need to pay royalties for the associated patents.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Would you argue that 3G, LTE, and WiFi are not open standards?

Reply Score: 3

vnangia Member since:
2011-08-08

I think you're confusing "FRAND" standards and "open standards". You've listed examples of FRAND standards - they're open to use, provided you pay all the associated costs. RFCs, or many (but not all!) standards from the IEEE, are examples of truly open standards: they are both openly published for you to create your own implementation, and you do not need to pay for the use of the standard.

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think you're confusing "FRAND" standards and "open standards". You've listed examples of FRAND standards - they're open to use, provided you pay all the associated costs. RFCs, or many (but not all!) standards from the IEEE, are examples of truly open standards: they are both openly published for you to create your own implementation, and you do not need to pay for the use of the standard.


Which is why I asked if he considered the above standards to be examples of "open" standards. I am well aware of the difference, but I am of the opinion that the differences don't disqualify those standards from being "open".

Open doesn't mean there is zero cost associated with the use of the standard. If you're limiting open standards to only those who are royalty free, then you end up with very little standards (and in fact would be arguing that W3C standards like CSS are not open).

Reply Score: 1

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

From Microsoft's own national technology officer:


"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process."

Under Microsoft's own definition EAS is not open (or much of a standard really).

Reply Score: 8

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.

Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.

Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.

Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.

Edited 2013-01-22 07:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.

Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.

Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.

Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.


You raise good points. Do you agree/disagree on royalties disqualifying a standard from being "open"?

If EAS were developed in the open, with community participation, but still had essential patents disclosed (and licensed reasonably*), would you consider it open?

* reasonable licensing doesn't necessarily imply FRAND, though it helps, obviously.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Yes, royalties disqualify technology from being open, especially if we are talking in the context of the Web. Open means also free to use including in open source / community implementations which can't pay any royalties.

Edited 2013-01-22 08:57 UTC

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FRAND obligations and reasonable licensing with Microsoft giving up exclusive control over the protocol would not necessarily imply that the standard is open or closed.

Currently EAS is much more accessible than any GSM standard. Microsoft is giving out licenses easily and they are not expensive.

Reply Score: 2

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

IMHO It's more a cost shift (the political one also make sense),
Google want to cut cost by removing support to EAS and then stop paying Microsoft a license.
While Microsoft bear the cost of developing and deploying a DAV client for its phone.
As deep as Google pocket are I can't blame them for cutting some corner to make more money.

Reply Score: 2

RE: they gave notice, thats nice
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 00:37 UTC in reply to "they gave notice, thats nice"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Depending on when in the product cycle Google notified them, they could've had too little time to do it without severely impacting QA.

Reply Score: 2

RE: they gave notice, thats nice
by darknexus on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 01:00 UTC in reply to "they gave notice, thats nice"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Microsoft did it to themselves. Implementing support for *DAV should have been a no brainer from the start, and not simply because of Google. These are open, royalty-free standards that are used by a multitude of servers both corporate and otherwise. Of course, that's probably why they didn't do it. They probably assumed they could throw their weight around if they held off, since most major services also supported EAS. What Microsoft has so far failed to learn, even though it's been plain as day from the get go, is that this is not a market they can bully by refusing to implement an open standard. They have no weight to throw around in the mobile space, and they've just lost the first battle. I've nothing against Microsoft products, but they need to change tactics mighty quick if they don't want Windows Phone to become irrelevant within the next two years. Here's to hoping that being essentially left with no choice but to implement *DAV wakes them up a bit, as I'd like to see Windows Phone give some healthy competition to the big two.

Reply Score: 6

RE: they gave notice, thats nice
by jockm on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 06:45 UTC in reply to "they gave notice, thats nice"
jockm Member since:
2012-12-22

You can still get EAS access, you just need to pay for it. While I am not a fan of Google's move, it isn't like you are completely high and dry. You just have to move to a paid google apps account, $50/year/user

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:36 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Will they add DAV support to their Exchange servers as well?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Adurbe on Mon 21st Jan 2013 22:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

Slightly off topic, but I think if they support the DAV standards they will support it across their user products

*Outlook.com calendar (maybe why it has yet to be updated)
*Outlook app
*Mail app in Win8 + RT

However I Don't think they will include it as part of exchange. Exchange is simply a brilliant product and keeping it distinct has the dual effect of enticing new users to its many benefits and keeping them locked in once they switch.

(I have used a number of options professionally and Exchange was so easy, powerful and well supported it became my favourite)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Mon 21st Jan 2013 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Lack of support for open standards in Exchange server hinders interoperability as much as the lack of support for them in MS client programs. I.e. for example you can't sync your calendar client which works through CalDav with Exchange server. It is especially a problem in corporate environments which are commonly stuck in depending on Microsoft products.

Edited 2013-01-21 22:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WP 7.X users
by ronaldst on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:55 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

I hope they won't be left out.

Reply Score: 3

really - what's wrong with *DAV?
by project_2501 on Mon 21st Jan 2013 23:04 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

I've heard some sentiment that the DAV protocols aren't as good / useful as ActiveSync.

Appreciate if someone can reply with information as to the truth of this?

Reply Score: 2

RE: really - what's wrong with *DAV?
by uteck on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "really - what's wrong with *DAV?"
uteck Member since:
2006-07-16

The problem is that ActiveSync generates income for MS and allows them to exclude competitors, and DAV generates no direct income for MS. Also, they lose control over who connects to their systems so they have little interest in supporting it.

Reply Score: 4

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The *DAV suite is actually very nice, and in some ways better than Microsoft's alternative.

I believe more people criticize IMAP (rightly so) for not having a true push solution.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

What's wrong with IMAP IDLE?

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It isn't true push.

Reply Score: 2

shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

It still accomplishes the same goal - removes the burden of the constant polling from the server. Somewhat similar to how BOSH is used for XMPP. Surely full duplex communication is preferable, that's why WebSockets were designed for web servers. Are there any efforts for such communication in e-mail protocols? ActiveSync is irrelevant, since it's not an open protocol. So what else?

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm unsure, but it is part of my issue with this hatchet they're taking to EAS. Without a suitable solution in place, it is irresponsible to reduce consumer functionality. I wish Google was a little more pragmatic.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm unsure, but it is part of my issue with this hatchet they're taking to EAS. Without a suitable solution in place, it is irresponsible to reduce consumer functionality. I wish Google was a little more pragmatic.


EAS is proprietary, from an end-user point of view it results in lock-in to a single supplier, and introduces requirement for the consumer to have to pay royalties. To retain such a standard as the only means of access is to reduce consumer functionality. To get rid of such a lock-in to a proprietary pay-per-access "standard" is by far the best thing to happen, from a consumer perspective.

I put the word "standard" in italics here, in relation to EAS, because a true standard is mean to enable inter-operability of different products. See here for a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_standard
"A software standard is a standard, protocol, or other common format of a document, file, or data transfer accepted and used by one or more software developers while working on one or more than one computer programs. Software standards enable interoperability between different programs created by different developers."

EAS constrains consumers to MS products only. If anything, it is an anti-standard.

This is a self-evident truth. How could you have possibly got it so backwards?

Reply Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't really think it is the case. People use EAS because it is the best solution. The people I know that interact with it on a daily basis swear by it.

I find it backwards to complain about something, but offer up no alternative which replicates its functionality. There is no equivalent to EAS. It is the best at what it does.

That is all I am saying.

Reply Score: 2

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

I put the word "standard" in italics here, in relation to EAS, because a true standard is mean to enable inter-operability of different products. See here for a definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_standard
"A software standard is a standard, protocol, or other common format of a document, file, or data transfer accepted and used by one or more software developers while working on one or more than one computer programs. Software standards enable interoperability between different programs created by different developers."

EAS constrains consumers to MS products only. If anything, it is an anti-standard.

This is a self-evident truth. How could you have possibly got it so backwards?


You have it backwards. Microsoft licenses their standard for implementation by third parties. Are you really saying that Google uses Exchange as the back end for GMail (Or Yahoo, etc.)?

EAS clearly meets your standard definition as it is widely supported by most mobile operating systems as well as major service providers. In reality, CalDAV and CardDAV are not nearly as widely adopted. As I mentioned last time this came up Google themselves do not support it in Android yet.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'm unsure, but it is part of my issue with this hatchet they're taking to EAS. Without a suitable solution in place, it is irresponsible to reduce consumer functionality.


Now please tell me how is the consumer impacted negatively here? (First look up the definition of consumer, vs customer)

Did the deprecation of EAS on free Google services make it impossible to use Outlook.com or other services that provide the same functionality?

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Now please tell me how is the consumer impacted negatively here? (First look up the definition of consumer, vs customer)

Did the deprecation of EAS on free Google services make it impossible to use Outlook.com or other services that provide the same functionality?


I was wondering when you'd show up. No, not impossible, just inconvenient.

Everything can be worked around, but jut telling people to switch to Outlook.com is the wrong answer.

Google either needed to relent or Microsoft needed to implement DAV (which it looks like they're doing). Telling people to migrate all of their data over somewhere else over a political decision is stupid.

Reply Score: 2

Is anyone really going to wait?
by jnemesh on Mon 21st Jan 2013 23:09 UTC
jnemesh
Member since:
2008-04-08

I foresee affected users bailing from the Windows platform. Anyone who relies on these features is NOT going to wait up to 6 months for a Microsoft update to fix the problem!

Reply Score: 3

worst case for MS
by bnolsen on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 02:38 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

Locked in DIY is hurting MS. Now they have to support their own proprietary protocols in addition to supporting open ones. Twice as much work! I hope they start supporting opengl ES soon as well. They'll probably need to to stay relevant on the mobile side.

Reply Score: 3

RE: worst case for MS
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 04:01 UTC in reply to "worst case for MS"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft will side step OpenGL in the following ways:

1) Windows (up to 7):
DirectX is king on Windows. Huge titles are written in DirectX. There is an extensive catalog and many, many years of accumulated legacy code which uses DirectX.

Key questions to ask:
- How many games use enough middleware to make them rendering platform agnostic?
- How many developer studios go DirectX first vs OpenGL first? (I go into this a bit below in the Xbox section)

2) Windows 8 and the Windows Store
The Windows Store supports DirectX 11.1 and as such, porting a lot of Windows 7 apps is now a viable option. You will begin to see DirectX apps move to the Windows Store.

I believe that in the next year, you'll see unbelievable growth in the Windows Store. That will cause pressure on Windows Phone and even on Xbox ISVs to share code between the platforms (assuming Microsoft can get their ducks in a row w.r.t indie development on the 360 which is a mess at the moment)

3) Xbox
Xbox supports DirectX and there are a lot of big name games written using DirectX. Yes, I understand some of these (more so than maybe on the PC) are also running on OpenGL, but it is often an afterthought. In my experience, I've seen a lot more low quality ports to the PS3 rather than the other way around.

It doesn't seem to me, at least, that a large amounts of studios are using OpenGL first. Again, maybe I'm wrong.

4) Windows Phone 8
Windows Phone 8 now supports native code and DirectX. In addition, the Windows Phone 8 port of WinRT enables massive amounts of code sharing between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8.

Windows Phone has traditionally had a good game selection, with this, I expect Windows Store DirectX apps to be ported to Windows Phone 8.

5) Developer Preference
Most people I've run into that use DirectX, don't exactly seem to hate it. Nor have I seen a lot of developers lamenting the fact that they lose out on cross platform support, because that story isn't really coherent yet on Linux and to a lesser extent, OSX.


Some caveats:
I have not taken a hard enough look at iOS, Android, and other platforms that use OpenGL to know if there is enough there to tip the scales.

I'm not convinced its a sure thing for DirectX, but this seems to me the plausible strategy that Microsoft is employing.


There is a lot of noise about how Microsoft has put XAML and the WinRT (and even Metro) everywhere, and to an extent, they have.

However, the one platform that is unquestionable ubiquitous on Microsoft platforms now is DirectX. This is an extremely valuable proposition for developers, and I think it stands a good chance of boosting DirectX.

Edited 2013-01-22 04:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: worst case for MS
by dpJudas on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE: worst case for MS"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Yes, there is no doubt that Microsoft has placed Direct3D 11 at the heart of Windows 8 (a trend that started with Windows Vista and is now virtually complete). And this is the only graphics API they want to support, with WPF layered on top for traditional desktop apps.

However that is not exactly news - they've been dreaming of this for almost a decade now. What is changing is their position in the market and what their competitors are up to. Virtually everyone else is standardizing on OpenGL (including WebGL for browsers).

So the real question then becomes whether developers will bother target Microsoft platforms or not. Obviously game developers going for the PC and console markets has no choice, but game developers for mobiles might simply choose not to bother. In the same way if WebGL based websites begin to take off it could become more Microsoft's problem that Internet Explorer isn't supported than the other way around.

Edited 2013-01-22 07:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: worst case for MS
by JAlexoid on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:12 UTC in reply to "RE: worst case for MS"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Xbox supports DirectX and there are a lot of big name games written using DirectX. Yes, I understand some of these (more so than maybe on the PC) are also running on OpenGL, but it is often an afterthought. In my experience, I've seen a lot more low quality ports to the PS3 rather than the other way around.

XBox does do D3D, but low level API(the one that is used by most, now) is not D3D. PS3 and Wii titles also don't end up using OpenGL ES. Thing is, the low level API is very OpenGL'ish.

Also, don't overestimate D3D. There are not critical differences.

PS: DX is more than D3D.

I have not taken a hard enough look at iOS, Android, and other platforms that use OpenGL to know if there is enough there to tip the scales.


It's exactly the point here. Mobile space is the future and OpenGL ES is the king there. Hell, Unity Tech has yet to release their engine for WP8.(Even though they support DX11 in Unity4)

I can't underestimate how much good for graphics API standards DX has done, but open standards are taking over.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: worst case for MS
by dsmogor on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:59 UTC in reply to "RE: worst case for MS"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Just asking. Is it viable to use DX on a console?
XBox titles seem to be on par with PS3 ones, while PS3 devs user bare metal programming.
Having heard that GFX APIs eat as much as 60% of the underlying HW performance something just doesn't add up here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: worst case for MS
by osvil on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: worst case for MS"
osvil Member since:
2012-10-25

XBox 360 GPU is way better than the PS3 one. The PS3 can make for it because of the clever tricks the system allows (when going down to the metal) and because of the extra CPU muscle.

Direct X implementation in the XBox360 is quite close to the metal as well. As it has some "extras". It is also easier to optimize code written for a specific implementation of a given API.

BTW, it is a well known fact that in Windows-land drivers get adapted to the "important" games, even going to the point to detect the game that is being run and use for it a driver tuned for that game (maybe even hardcoding "optimizations" that work in that game but couldn't go to a generic driver as they deviate from the API behavior).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: worst case for MS
by bnolsen on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: worst case for MS"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

To a great degree your argument here hinges on whether or not a Windows Market actually takes off. I would wait and see on that. At this point I think we should start using "this is the year of MS on mobile" instead of "this is the year of linux on the desktop".

If its true that most computers are used for email, web browsing, youtube, etc a windows market won't really have much of an impact.

And another important item: Mobile is currently high growth, extremely high growth. PC is fairly stagnant. Follow the opportunity where there's real growth and real marketshare, it's currently on android and ios.

Reply Score: 2

By the way.
by dsmogor on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 08:38 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

Had anybody problem, synchronizing Google contacts through EAS that only first 50 get pulled?
I'm getting grey hair because of that with my N9. Ironically E is the only way contacts can be got from gmail on this Linux based device.

Reply Score: 2

RE: By the way.
by caudex on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 09:13 UTC in reply to "By the way."
caudex Member since:
2008-07-05

Why don't you just set up the gmail account with the normal gmail account type? You get everything except calendar syncing when you set it up. Accounts/Add account/Google. No need to use exchange for mail and contact syncing (and the Google account type also support push mail).

Reply Score: 2

RE: By the way.
by winter skies on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 11:05 UTC in reply to "By the way."
winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

Had anybody problem, synchronizing Google contacts through EAS that only first 50 get pulled?
I'm getting grey hair because of that with my N9. Ironically E is the only way contacts can be got from gmail on this Linux based device.


I thought MeeGo Harmattan supported CalDAV out of the box! Am I understanding anything wrong? Take a look at

http://techy.horwits.com/2012/03/nokia-n9-and-caldav-on-google.html

Unfortunately I don't own the device, so I can't try it before speaking.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: By the way.
by bentoo on Thu 24th Jan 2013 01:29 UTC in reply to "RE: By the way."
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

I thought MeeGo Harmattan supported CalDAV out of the box! Am I understanding anything wrong?


Yes. CalDAV is for calendar data, CardDAV is for contacts.

Reply Score: 1