Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 14:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 547425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Proves me right.
by Windows Sucks on Sat 5th Jan 2013 18:14
in reply to "RE: Proves me right. "
Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.
Well a lot of people argued it was all about open standards and had nothing to do with punishing MS.
But if Google cared about open standards they would of took it out of all their products but they didn't. They kept it in their paid products.
Open standards my booty. They know active sync works better then DAV services and for sure is more easy to use so they kept it for their business customers.
It's just punishment for MS. Lol.
RE[3]: Proves me right.
by unoengborg on Sun 6th Jan 2013 13:05
in reply to "RE[2]: Proves me right. "
"Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.
But if Google cared about open standards they would of took it out of all their products but they didn't. They kept it in their paid products.
"
Google is a business and need to support their existing customers, so they keep it in their paid products. Not having it for free will create an incentive to create better solutions.
Not always; Microsoft does actually contribute a tiny bit to the F/OSS community. There are two problems though. One, they only contribute when it benefits them, which is selfish but not unheard of (I'm looking at you, Canonical). The bigger problem is that for every tiny bit of positive contribution, they take away a pound of flesh elsewhere, for example with the patent extortion of various companies that use GNU/Linux in some form.





Member since:
2009-05-19
Well duh... Though it might force Microsoft to implement open standards.