Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Aug 2013 16:10 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y

In the past two months, Microsoft and Google have been bickering over one central issue: HTML5. The Verge has learned that Google is forcing Microsoft to build its YouTube Windows Phone app in HTML5, despite its own Android and iOS versions using superior native code. Although Microsoft has offered to build ad support along with making other tweaks as Google has requested, a full HTML5 app isn't currently possible on the platform.

The difficult thing here is that Google actually has a very good case; it's their API, their service, their rules. On top of that, YouTube publishers - big and small - need to earn money from advertisements too, and incorrect implementations make that harder. Microsoft's mafia practices regarding patents, extorting companies to pay for Android use even though Microsoft has contributed zero code to Android plays a role too. Lastly, Windows Phone is essentially irrelevant with 3% market share - it's not as if Microsoft ever concerned itself with minority platforms.

Still, all this does is hurt consumers, no matter how few Windows Phone users there are. Just work this out, please, you bunch of children.

Thread beginning with comment 569912
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE: The nuclear option"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"Revoke Google's EAS licenses and watch the mass exodus from Google Apps and Android devices in the enterprise.

Without Exchange Google loses almost over night.

That strikes me as something that could backfire horrifically. There's just too many Android devices around that people would roll over and accept that kind of move from Microsoft.

At my place of work your option for a work issued cell is an Android device or an Android device. Or possibly an Android device. They've spent millions on Android phones for employees. If it came down to it, the question would be "Which will cost less; replacing every single cell 'phone, or replacing Exchange?" and I'm not sure that Exchange wouldn't lose that accountancy battle.
"

Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: The nuclear option
by Soulbender on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:16 in reply to "RE[2]: The nuclear option"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.


There are no drop-in replacements for Exchange, no matter how much we would like there to be. Exchange can be replaced by existing OSS technologies but it's not a drop-in deal. It takes quite a bit of effort to make that migration without pissing off all your users.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: The nuclear option
by lemur2 on Sat 17th Aug 2013 13:40 in reply to "RE[3]: The nuclear option"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Especially since there now exist drop-in replacements for Exchange, some of which are even zero cost.


There are no drop-in replacements for Exchange, no matter how much we would like there to be. Exchange can be replaced by existing OSS technologies but it's not a drop-in deal. It takes quite a bit of effort to make that migration without pissing off all your users.
"

If you have existing large-scale infrastructure, you do have a very significant task ahead of you.

There are however a number of very easy replacements for Exchange if one doesn't have significant existing infrastructure to cater for, as would be the case for small businesses or even new medium-scale businesses.

http://www.zentyal.com/

http://www.zimbra.com/

http://www.citadel.org/

http://www.alfresco.com/

One from my own country: http://atmail.com/

There are a lot to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Collabo...

Edited 2013-08-17 13:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2