Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Windows The Verge has a learned a few interesting things about Google deprecating EAS and how this will affect Windows Phone users. As it turns out, Google informed Microsoft it was planning to remove EAS in the summer of last year, but without giving a firm date. Microsoft has been trying to get a six-month extension from Google, but so far with no luck. In the meantime, Microsoft is also working on adding CardDAV and CalDAV support to Windows Phone - so yay open standards.
Thread beginning with comment 549780
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Would you argue that 3G, LTE, and WiFi are not open standards?

Reply Parent Score: 3

vnangia Member since:
2011-08-08

I think you're confusing "FRAND" standards and "open standards". You've listed examples of FRAND standards - they're open to use, provided you pay all the associated costs. RFCs, or many (but not all!) standards from the IEEE, are examples of truly open standards: they are both openly published for you to create your own implementation, and you do not need to pay for the use of the standard.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think you're confusing "FRAND" standards and "open standards". You've listed examples of FRAND standards - they're open to use, provided you pay all the associated costs. RFCs, or many (but not all!) standards from the IEEE, are examples of truly open standards: they are both openly published for you to create your own implementation, and you do not need to pay for the use of the standard.


Which is why I asked if he considered the above standards to be examples of "open" standards. I am well aware of the difference, but I am of the opinion that the differences don't disqualify those standards from being "open".

Open doesn't mean there is zero cost associated with the use of the standard. If you're limiting open standards to only those who are royalty free, then you end up with very little standards (and in fact would be arguing that W3C standards like CSS are not open).

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.

Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.

Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.

Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.

Edited 2013-01-22 07:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

3G, LTE and WiFI are developer in an open way. They are not called open because you can get documentation.

Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.

Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.

Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.


You raise good points. Do you agree/disagree on royalties disqualifying a standard from being "open"?

If EAS were developed in the open, with community participation, but still had essential patents disclosed (and licensed reasonably*), would you consider it open?

* reasonable licensing doesn't necessarily imply FRAND, though it helps, obviously.

Reply Parent Score: 2