Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
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 545572
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.
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.
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
Member since:2006-06-18
Member since:2005-11-09
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 ?
Member since:2005-11-29
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc307725(EXCHG.80).aspx
You were saying?
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.