6 ms·

They just need to support EAS in their consumer stack. Google does support it and will continue to in enterprise. There's virtually no cost to them to support

They just need to support EAS in their consumer stack. Google does support it and will continue to in enterprise. There's virtually no cost to them to support it on their consumer service. This is an attack against their Windows customers, not a cost cutting measure. Google doesn't want us on their service. I'll comply.

justinschuh 14y ago
Your premise is absurd. Microsoft has the ActiveSync protocol patented to hell and back, and charges exorbitant licensing fees for its use. They're currently suing Motorola (a Google subsidiary) over exactly this. So, how about directing your ire at Microsoft for choosing to both not support open standards, and abusing the patent system to prevent others from reasonably implementing their proprietary standards. Because, I don't see any reason to get pissed at Google for not letting Microsoft continue to soak them on this.
isaacwaller 14y ago
I think there is a lot of cost to Google, they must pay for Exchange licences. I highly doubt that Google did this to cut off Windows Phone users, traditionally Google makes their services available to as many platforms as possible.
- saurik 14y ago
  Yeah, another interpretation of this (and to be clear: I'm not saying that this is the case; just that it also fits the data we have) is that Microsoft has made the terms of an upcoming license renewal worse now that they have a more reasonable competitor to Gmail, thinking that they can use this to win back some of what are arguably their own customers.
  - 3825 14y ago
    >arguably their own customers I use an Android phone but I wouldn't label myself as just a Google customer
    - saurik 14y ago
      I did say "arguably" (and I can't stress that enough: if you were Microsoft, wouldn't you feel like these are your customers? it doesn't really matter what the customers think); that said, if your purchase was affected by the fact that the device came with the Market and other Google-branded apps that Google only offers to manufacturers as part of a licensing program, then you are at least indirectly their customer. Also, it should be noted that many of the people who need Exchange sync support are also doing so because they have an iPhone (where Google at least used to recommend you use the Exchange protocol to access Gmail instead of Apple's Gmail profile, as it allowed more content to synchronize; maybe Apple fixed this) or want the extended synchronization to work in clients like Outlook. It just feels somewhat weird that Google /chose/ to do this, given the importance they ascribe to getting the most out of tools like Outlook that some Gmail users really want to access all of their content with: it doesn't really screw Microsoft very much as most normal people aren't tied to their e-mail address (like us techy people are)... it mostly helps Microsoft's Outlook.com service.
      - 3825 14y ago
        I know exactly one person who owns a Windows Phone 8 device (the 920). I can see where he is coming from because he is our SharePoint guy.
- zmmmmm 14y ago
  It would be really interesting to know if there's a per-user cost. If so, then it would seem to be extremely generous of Google to be paying Microsoft for the privilege of having Microsoft's users get free email access on their phone. If not, then it seems kind of mean. But then, when the other side is giving away free phones to people to publicly trash your operating system it must be hard not to be a little bit mean in return.
duaneb 14y ago
> This is an attack against their Windows customers, not a cost cutting measure. I really don't think that Google has some weird malicious desire to fuck over Windows customers. I think this is just an effort to get Microsoft to play nicely with internet standards- which is good for everyone.
- kenjackson 14y ago
  Google has also said they are not going to support Win8 at all. And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. If Google built a full fidelity open platform for Gmail and YouTube APIs then maybe I'd believe you. But as it stands today Google only believes in open standards when they aren't in a strong market position.
  - hahainternet 14y ago
    > And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. Sorry, could you be more explicit?
  - duaneb 14y ago
    > Google has also said they are not going to support Win8 at all. Source? Last I checked, Chrome is fully supported, and whatever internet explorer comes with it is SURELY supported.... it'd be huge news if they didn't. > And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. Is it? It's much better than POP3, and to my knowledge it supports every feature of GMail I use but search and different star ("flag") colors. Syncing does suck, but that's syncing, not IMAP. I can't imagine downloading 2 gigs of email would be much better with another protocol. > But as it stands today Google only believes in open standards when they aren't in a strong market position. Hey, it's better than doing what Microsoft has done traditionally- i.e. using their strong market position to lock customers into closed systems. But I'm really not trying to take sides in this matter- the customer gets hurt no matter who the target is. I just think that saying "Google is screwing over Windows users" is disingenuous; that's clearly not their intention (which is "Google is trying to manipulate Microsoft."). Microsoft is no longer the biggest kid on the playground, and they can't expect everyone to license their tech, especially when most mail-reading devices are probably not windows devices.
notatoad 14y ago
>Google doesn't want us on their service. it's not that google doesn't want you, it's that google doesn't care about you. windows phone users are not a significant market share for anybody. nobody is going to go out of their way to do anything special for something with 2% market share (and if my server logs are any indication, more like 0.2% usage share)
- meaty 14y ago
  Yet. Don't piss off potential customers. Its business 101.
  - notatoad 14y ago
    If you're not pissing off anybody ever, you're probably doing something wrong.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Do you have a source for ’virtually no cost'? Often, sometimes intentionally, liscenced formats strongly favour one business model over another.

justinschuh 14y ago

Your premise is absurd. Microsoft has the ActiveSync protocol patented to hell and back, and charges exorbitant licensing fees for its use. They're currently suing Motorola (a Google subsidiary) over exactly this. So, how about directing your ire at Microsoft for choosing to both not support open standards, and abusing the patent system to prevent others from reasonably implementing their proprietary standards. Because, I don't see any reason to get pissed at Google for not letting Microsoft continue to soak them on this.

isaacwaller 14y ago

I think there is a lot of cost to Google, they must pay for Exchange licences. I highly doubt that Google did this to cut off Windows Phone users, traditionally Google makes their services available to as many platforms as possible.

saurik 14y ago
Yeah, another interpretation of this (and to be clear: I'm not saying that this is the case; just that it also fits the data we have) is that Microsoft has made the terms of an upcoming license renewal worse now that they have a more reasonable competitor to Gmail, thinking that they can use this to win back some of what are arguably their own customers.
- 3825 14y ago
  >arguably their own customers I use an Android phone but I wouldn't label myself as just a Google customer
  - saurik 14y ago
    I did say "arguably" (and I can't stress that enough: if you were Microsoft, wouldn't you feel like these are your customers? it doesn't really matter what the customers think); that said, if your purchase was affected by the fact that the device came with the Market and other Google-branded apps that Google only offers to manufacturers as part of a licensing program, then you are at least indirectly their customer. Also, it should be noted that many of the people who need Exchange sync support are also doing so because they have an iPhone (where Google at least used to recommend you use the Exchange protocol to access Gmail instead of Apple's Gmail profile, as it allowed more content to synchronize; maybe Apple fixed this) or want the extended synchronization to work in clients like Outlook. It just feels somewhat weird that Google /chose/ to do this, given the importance they ascribe to getting the most out of tools like Outlook that some Gmail users really want to access all of their content with: it doesn't really screw Microsoft very much as most normal people aren't tied to their e-mail address (like us techy people are)... it mostly helps Microsoft's Outlook.com service.
    - 3825 14y ago
      I know exactly one person who owns a Windows Phone 8 device (the 920). I can see where he is coming from because he is our SharePoint guy.
zmmmmm 14y ago
It would be really interesting to know if there's a per-user cost. If so, then it would seem to be extremely generous of Google to be paying Microsoft for the privilege of having Microsoft's users get free email access on their phone. If not, then it seems kind of mean. But then, when the other side is giving away free phones to people to publicly trash your operating system it must be hard not to be a little bit mean in return.

duaneb 14y ago

> This is an attack against their Windows customers, not a cost cutting measure. I really don't think that Google has some weird malicious desire to fuck over Windows customers. I think this is just an effort to get Microsoft to play nicely with internet standards- which is good for everyone.

kenjackson 14y ago
Google has also said they are not going to support Win8 at all. And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. If Google built a full fidelity open platform for Gmail and YouTube APIs then maybe I'd believe you. But as it stands today Google only believes in open standards when they aren't in a strong market position.
- hahainternet 14y ago
  > And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. Sorry, could you be more explicit?
- duaneb 14y ago
  > Google has also said they are not going to support Win8 at all. Source? Last I checked, Chrome is fully supported, and whatever internet explorer comes with it is SURELY supported.... it'd be huge news if they didn't. > And Google knows IMAP is pathetic as a replacement for mail. Is it? It's much better than POP3, and to my knowledge it supports every feature of GMail I use but search and different star ("flag") colors. Syncing does suck, but that's syncing, not IMAP. I can't imagine downloading 2 gigs of email would be much better with another protocol. > But as it stands today Google only believes in open standards when they aren't in a strong market position. Hey, it's better than doing what Microsoft has done traditionally- i.e. using their strong market position to lock customers into closed systems. But I'm really not trying to take sides in this matter- the customer gets hurt no matter who the target is. I just think that saying "Google is screwing over Windows users" is disingenuous; that's clearly not their intention (which is "Google is trying to manipulate Microsoft."). Microsoft is no longer the biggest kid on the playground, and they can't expect everyone to license their tech, especially when most mail-reading devices are probably not windows devices.

notatoad 14y ago

>Google doesn't want us on their service. it's not that google doesn't want you, it's that google doesn't care about you. windows phone users are not a significant market share for anybody. nobody is going to go out of their way to do anything special for something with 2% market share (and if my server logs are any indication, more like 0.2% usage share)

meaty 14y ago
Yet. Don't piss off potential customers. Its business 101.
- notatoad 14y ago
  If you're not pissing off anybody ever, you're probably doing something wrong.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

Do you have a source for ’virtually no cost'? Often, sometimes intentionally, liscenced formats strongly favour one business model over another.