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 549793
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

From Microsoft's own national technology officer:


"Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalised committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process."

Under Microsoft's own definition EAS is not open (or much of a standard really).

Reply Parent Score: 8

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't think its a fair definition. I am perfectly fine with calling wireless standards open standards.

They place no undue burden on the implementers and the licensing rates are reasonable. Do you agree?

I am much more in line with the IETF's definition.

Reply Parent Score: 2