Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Permalink for comment 545730
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2012-09-21
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.