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 545575
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 4