4 ms·

This is why I tend to prefer the android architecture over the iphone's. If I still had an android phone and a not-google 3rd party provider stopped offering A

by cbs 14y ago

This is why I tend to prefer the android architecture over the iphone's. If I still had an android phone and a not-google 3rd party provider stopped offering ActiveSync, I'd just use whatever their new thing is. iPhone says I have to sync using the X Y or Z protocol. android can connect to Exchange and also lets me write a custom sync app. I can download an app that hooks whatever-the-hell directly into my contact list (or other android system bits). As long as a little bit of java is written for it, any and every API can be turned into a 1st class citizen. Its the same for sharing. I click the share button on android and I get a list of all the applications that can take my android.content.Intent.ACTION_SEND intent. On iPhone, I can pick any service I want as long as it's twitter.

monochromatic 14y ago
Turning this into a pro-Google, anti-Apple thing was really not an easy piece of rhetoric. I applaud you for even trying.
- cbs 14y ago
  Why you gotta look at it in those terms? Relative advantages and disadvantages can exist without couching it in the terms of pro-x anti-y. Seriously, would anyone actually give a damn about this if cellphones were not uniquely tied to the exchange sync protocol? Is it not true that the cellphone I choose to own is at a disadvantage in this particular circumstance?
  - monochromatic 14y ago
    You're the one who put it in those terms, not me. And yes, regardless of particular phones being tied to particular protocols, I would still care that google is disabling something that I've used every day of my life for years.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
el_cuadrado 14y ago
ActiveSync is proprietary protocol designed by Microsoft, and it has nothing to do with iOS or Android. Everybody is implementing it (and paying hefty license fee to MSFT), because it is the best and most-widely supported sync protocol.
- cbs 14y ago
  I know you mean well, but I'm aware of that and it is tangential to my point. What I'm taking issue with is the underlying inertia that causes it to be in a self-reinforcing loop as most widely supported protocol for mobile. When I got my iPhone I had to pick between a handful of sync protocols, EAS being one of them. My Android devices let me download apps that add new sync providers. I don't so much as care about the day to day machination of google and microsoft as the ability for our tech to cope with whatever they want to throw at us. In this case google happens to be behind both gmail and android, but my point still stands that the android platform is a better suited to dealing with generic external changes w/r/t features that need to hook into the built in functionality of the device. I'm not saying I think it is better overall (I do have an iPhone), I just think this is one place where the architecture of that system is strong and wish that other mobiles took a similar foward-thinking design. If they did, it might not matter at all that google dropped X for Y, just a slight inconvenience while you install the requisite adapter to maintain the same level of integration.

by cbs 14y ago

monochromatic 14y ago

Turning this into a pro-Google, anti-Apple thing was really not an easy piece of rhetoric. I applaud you for even trying.

cbs 14y ago
Why you gotta look at it in those terms? Relative advantages and disadvantages can exist without couching it in the terms of pro-x anti-y. Seriously, would anyone actually give a damn about this if cellphones were not uniquely tied to the exchange sync protocol? Is it not true that the cellphone I choose to own is at a disadvantage in this particular circumstance?
- monochromatic 14y ago
  You're the one who put it in those terms, not me. And yes, regardless of particular phones being tied to particular protocols, I would still care that google is disabling something that I've used every day of my life for years.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

el_cuadrado 14y ago

ActiveSync is proprietary protocol designed by Microsoft, and it has nothing to do with iOS or Android. Everybody is implementing it (and paying hefty license fee to MSFT), because it is the best and most-widely supported sync protocol.

cbs 14y ago
I know you mean well, but I'm aware of that and it is tangential to my point. What I'm taking issue with is the underlying inertia that causes it to be in a self-reinforcing loop as most widely supported protocol for mobile. When I got my iPhone I had to pick between a handful of sync protocols, EAS being one of them. My Android devices let me download apps that add new sync providers. I don't so much as care about the day to day machination of google and microsoft as the ability for our tech to cope with whatever they want to throw at us. In this case google happens to be behind both gmail and android, but my point still stands that the android platform is a better suited to dealing with generic external changes w/r/t features that need to hook into the built in functionality of the device. I'm not saying I think it is better overall (I do have an iPhone), I just think this is one place where the architecture of that system is strong and wish that other mobiles took a similar foward-thinking design. If they did, it might not matter at all that google dropped X for Y, just a slight inconvenience while you install the requisite adapter to maintain the same level of integration.