To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't think Good enough quantifies it enough, I'm interested in how they compare on battery life.
It could go either way. Are the EAS supporters overstating the disadvantages of IMAP IDLE or the other way around?
I haven't seen a concrete comparison (and its tough, because a lot of this is heavy on jargon and long boring RFC documents that I don't really have the time to read) but I'd be interested in one.
I also wonder if IMAP IDLE is coming with DAV. Windows Phone already supports IMAP, so IMAP IDLE seems like low hanging fruit.
Are there are extensions to IMAP which enable true push? Are there efforts underway?
I think if we truly want to have choice when it comes to syncing solutions, these are important questions that need to be laid to rest.
"Good enough" is actually the whole point.
Google still supports EAS for their paying customers, which makes sense since Microsoft's expects a royalty fee. People who feel EAS is a superior alternative can still use the service if they are willing to pay for it. Which makes this debate really moot.





Member since:
2010-06-08
As I said IMAP IDLE is good enough, even if it's not a true duplex protocol. It's good enough to get rid of proprietary analogs. Interoperability is way more important than better protocols which come with lock-in price.
Edited 2013-01-22 05:41 UTC