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.
Thread beginning with comment 545566
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by cdude on Tue 18th Dec 2012 07:37 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 11:19 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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.


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

http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2012/03/27/asp-net-mvc-web-a...

There is nothing from me developing MVC apps for the Mono Framework.

OOXML is an ISO standard, C# is a ISO standard ... I could go on.

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.


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.

Your argument is deeply flawed. The competition came in that Firefox offered a better browsing experience than IE6 (mainly tabs and the plugins community). This is why I use Firefox today, because I prefer the interface.

When they'll also cure the lack of OpenGL support on their platforms.


While version of OpenGL I think you mean, OpenGL ES is the only OpenGL standard that is widely support its completeness.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 12:38 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 Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:33 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by bert64 on Wed 19th Dec 2012 16:43 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:44 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 Parent Score: 2