12-20-2012 11:01 PM
196 ... 34567 ...
tools
  1. Byzantium's Avatar
    Spoken like a true Google fanboy.
    I'm hardly a fan. I'm quite antagonistic to Google in a lot of ways. Heck I'm even blocking the googleanalytics and google syndication tracker requests on this forum as I'm typing this on Firefox . I only use Android because there's no other option for a mobile OS that is as unrestricted as Android is. If a real Linux mobile OS came out or Windows Phone acted like Windows 7 which I use along with Linux for desktop, I'd jump on that and probably delete my Google account, which I use only for Email, Youtube, Reader and Contacts sync.

    Back on topic... Google is truly trying to change the OS wars by limiting services available to WP. This can be good or bad depending on your preferences.
    It's always bad. No matter what. There's no preferences involved. Everything these companies do against one another hurts the consumers.
    12-16-2012 10:01 AM
  2. Reflexx's Avatar
    Only a few people hate Google.

    I don't hate Google. But if they want to make it more difficult for me to use their services on my phone, then I will just use a different service.
    12-16-2012 10:46 AM
  3. rich4A1's Avatar
    I wish I can do the same but I'm required to use Google Calendar and Drive at work. I've been advocating for SkyDrive but haven't succeeded yet.
    12-16-2012 01:08 PM
  4. a5cent's Avatar
    Only a few people hate Google.

    I don't hate Google. But if they want to make it more difficult for me to use their services on my phone, then I will just use a different service.
    I don't hate Google either, and I don't think anyone should. Actually, I can't think of a single tech company worth hating. If we're going to hate a company, there are much better candidates to be found in the financial and insurance industries. Big oil also offers a worthy selection. A company like Monsanto is also a good pick... with so many to choose from, why hate a tech company? It makes no sense.

    Google isn't telling us everything, but they aren't covering things up either. Like all major corporations, they are constantly looking to increase their power and influence. That is to be expected. At least they aren't ripping off the little guy. My standards may be low, but that is already pretty good in my book.

    As long as we can choose not to use their services (edit: and prevented from misusing monopoly power), we're fine.
    Last edited by a5cent; 12-16-2012 at 06:20 PM. Reason: see edit
    12-16-2012 01:29 PM
  5. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Few people hate Google... It is just important to point out the reality of Google, when possible, because they have such a good PR machine. Way too many people think that Google is a nonprofit "do good" company who creates free software and services to make the world a better place.
    12-16-2012 03:04 PM
  6. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Few people hate Google... It is just important to point out the reality of Google, when possible, because they have such a good PR machine. Way too many people think that Google is a nonprofit "do good" company who creates free software and services to make the world a better place.
    That's true. I do have to say Google has invested those profits made via advertising well. I've taken the Bing challenge. Google won.
    12-16-2012 03:27 PM
  7. Luminatic's Avatar
    Meh. I just realised that the way out of anything google is not THAT easy for me. Reason: Google search. Narrow by date. Tell my another search engine where I can narrow my search results by date (I use that function quite often), then I will say "thank you very much" and use a non-google search engine more often.
    Also, I'm asking myself why bing is still on beta in my country? Since three years? I mean, come ooooooooon, MS! Take your fingers out and show some love to the small, seamingly unimportant countries as well!
    12-16-2012 04:10 PM
  8. Reflexx's Avatar
    Weird thing about Bing is that sometimes it gives you tho option to narrow by date. Sometimes it doesn't. I don't know what criteria it makes this choice on.

    I always try Bing first. But if narrow by date doesn't show up as an option, I then try Google.
    12-16-2012 04:20 PM
  9. Luminatic's Avatar
    Hah. Found another alternative to goole: duckduckgo! I can sort my search results by date there,will try out this search engine in the next few days.
    12-16-2012 04:27 PM
  10. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Google Search has gotten progressively dumber for me over time. For instance, recently they simply removed the option to list video search results by date (newest first). Bing is often better for searching YouTube than Google's own search engine.
    12-16-2012 04:27 PM
  11. thor_molecules's Avatar
    I think all this anger towards Google for removing ActiveSync functionality is a bit misguided. I suspect that few, if anyone around here is aware that they have to pay Microsoft to license the technology. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to ditch them in favor of an open source alternative, seeing as how the vast majority of Gmail accounts using ActiveSync were free -- meaning that Google wasn't making any money from the user to cover the cost.

    Don't get me wrong, I like WP8 and all (though I returned my Lumia 822) but I haven't forgotten that MS has been leveraging ActiveSync to extract money out of companies for years. The general response up to this point has been "why doesn't xyz company just use something different?" Well, now companies have the means to do just that.

    Can't be mad at them for going that route.
    12-16-2012 04:37 PM
  12. brmiller1976's Avatar
    The cost of an ActiveSync license is likely less than a thousandth of a penny per user. Google probably pays more to license codecs for YouTube.
    12-16-2012 05:33 PM
  13. a5cent's Avatar
    I think all this anger towards Google for removing ActiveSync functionality is a bit misguided. I suspect that few, if anyone around here is aware that they have to pay Microsoft to license the technology. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to ditch them in favor of an open source alternative, seeing as how the vast majority of Gmail accounts using ActiveSync were free -- meaning that Google wasn't making any money from the user to cover the cost.
    1)
    Google never makes money off any of their users. Google's CFO may have decided that ActiveSync should be the only instance, within the entire corporation, where users should be covering their costs, but I find that unlikely. There is much more to this decision than just financials.

    2)
    It makes perfect sense for Google to ditch ActiveSync, but not at all for the reason you are suggesting (savings). I don't know what the licensing agreement between Google and Microsoft looks like, but it is entirely possible that it saves Google nothing at all. People already using EAS can keep using it, as can corporate, government or educational institutions. Brand new WP users hoping to sync with Google's services are the only consumers this will affect. Google isn't getting rid of EAS. They are just restricting who can use it.

    3)
    I think you are underestimating the people here. Many work in IT, and I'm sure some of them will know using EAS incurs licensing fees.

    4)
    That you find the reaction towards Google misguided is understandable, as you perceive that their actions are simply a cost cutting measure. Most of this community doesn't share that view. This is a tactical move to hit Microsoft, WP, and those that use it. Hitting the little guy usually isn't a popular thing to do, so I think the reaction is justified.

    Personally, I've become less and less sympathetic towards Google over the years, and at least on my part, this also amounts to the last drop in the bucket.
    12-16-2012 06:14 PM
  14. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Microsoft is suing Motorola for using ActiveSync without paying license fees. It's also possible that Google did this as a swipe back in the ever-continuing warm-war between the two companies.
    12-16-2012 06:31 PM
  15. thor_molecules's Avatar
    1)
    Google never makes money off any of their users. Google's CFO may have decided that ActiveSync should be the only instance, within the entire corporation, where users should be covering their costs, but I find that unlikely. There is much more to this decision than just financials.

    2)
    It makes perfect sense for Google to ditch ActiveSync, but not at all for the reason you are suggesting (savings). I don't know what the licensing agreement between Google and Microsoft looks like, but it is entirely possible that it saves Google nothing at all. People already using EAS can keep using it, as can corporate, government or educational institutions. Brand new WP users hoping to sync with Google's services are the only consumers this will affect. Google isn't getting rid of EAS. They are just restricting who can use it.

    3)
    I think you are underestimating the people here. Many work in IT, and I'm sure some of them will know using EAS incurs licensing fees.

    4)
    That you find the reaction towards Google misguided is understandable, as you perceive that their actions are simply a cost cutting measure. Most of this community doesn't share that view. This is a tactical move to hit Microsoft, WP, and those that use it. Hitting the little guy usually isn't a popular thing to do, so I think the reaction is justified.

    Personally, I've become less and less sympathetic towards Google over the years, and at least on my part, this also amounts to the last drop in the bucket.
    Google Apps users pay for the service. So for them, it makes sense to keep ActiveSync around and that is what Google is doing. It has only been discontinued for new Gmail users starting January 30th. I don't get how this is a shot at Microsoft considering that for one, you don't have to use Gmail at all. There are plenty of viable alternatives available that support ActiveSync just fine (Outlook.com being the most obvious). Two, if you already have a Gmail account this doesn't even affect you as ActiveSync will remain available for use.

    These two things combined only further solidifies my point that many are complaining just for the sake of. I seriously doubt there's anyone sitting around right now thinking to themselves "Gee, I really hope that ActiveSync is still an option when I create a free Gmail account on January 31st."

    People are reading way too much into this. Google is not out to get you.
    12-16-2012 06:41 PM
  16. thor_molecules's Avatar
    The cost of an ActiveSync license is likely less than a thousandth of a penny per user. Google probably pays more to license codecs for YouTube.
    Even if this were true, what does that even matter? Just because they're licensing codecs for Youtube that means they should never look to save money on license fees anywhere else? Ever?

    A very strange point of view, to say the least.
    12-16-2012 06:43 PM
  17. brmiller1976's Avatar
    If saving $0.0000000000001 per user is more important than providing said user with a good user experience, I guess that could make sense. But if the user doesn't get a good user experience, he'll leave Gmail, and Google loses out on the opportunity to scrape all of his private correspondence and sell it to advertisers for $5 or more per impression.

    The gross margin on ActiveSync is thus something like 99.999999999999% -- hardly unprofitable.

    Then again, Google just doesn't get user experience. It never has. If you've been roped into a lot of their programs like Buzz, Wave, etc., you really got screwed when they discontinued it without warning. This is just another example, with no doubt some swiping at Microsoft involved as well, and it creates opportunity for Google competitors that likely costs Google a lot more in current and future revenue than an ActiveSync license does.
    12-16-2012 06:48 PM
  18. jwinch2's Avatar
    If MS is smart, they work on building an viable option to google reader into outlook.com very soon. That, and youtube are the big reasons I have kept my gmail active.
    12-16-2012 07:48 PM
  19. a5cent's Avatar
    I don't get how this is a shot at Microsoft considering that for one, you don't have to use Gmail at all. There are plenty of viable alternatives available that support ActiveSync just fine (Outlook.com being the most obvious). Two, if you already have a Gmail account this doesn't even affect you as ActiveSync will remain available for use.
    This isn't just about gmail. Many people share Google's calendars amongst friends, family and work associates. It is a common work requirement. Unfortunately, new WP users are now left out. I can no longer recommend a WP device to my friends who have such requirements, and most of them do. That is what this move is about.

    If this was only about gmail, I would agree with you. It isn't.

    Furthermore, your argument is based only on the assumption that Google's decision saves them money. I haven't seen Google mention that anywhere. As Google is still offering EAS to everyone that is using it now, I see no reason why it should.
    Last edited by a5cent; 12-16-2012 at 08:29 PM. Reason: added last paragraph
    12-16-2012 07:50 PM
  20. JamesTBurns's Avatar
    Isn't Safari good enough to display www.outlook.com or has iOS crippled users in thinking that if there isn't an app for it, it doesn't exist?
    No, keeps giving me a mobile site. Guess I need to go get a Surface...hardy har har, not. i'll keep the iPad.
    12-16-2012 09:03 PM
  21. thor_molecules's Avatar
    This isn't just about gmail. Many people share Google's calendars amongst friends, family and work associates. It is a common work requirement. Unfortunately, new WP users are now left out. I can no longer recommend a WP device to my friends who have such requirements, and most of them do. That is what this move is about.

    If this was only about gmail, I would agree with you. It isn't.

    Furthermore, your argument is based only on the assumption that Google's decision saves them money. I haven't seen Google mention that anywhere. As Google is still offering EAS to everyone that is using it now, I see no reason why it should.
    Dude, how is a move that only affects NEW Gmail users somehow *not* about Gmail? What else could it possibly be about? You're not making any sense to me. I'll see if I can explain this another way:

    Microsoft requires that companies pay a license fee to use ActiveSync. Google, choosing to dump ActiveSync for NEW Gmail users will not have to pay said license fee to Microsoft (again, only for new accounts). By extension, this will save them money over the long run. I sense that you have difficulty seeing how that adds up. Your comment would be somewhat valid if Gmail does not add any users from January 30th onward.

    But of course we both know that will not be the case.

    Stop trying to make this into a Google vs WP debate. At no point did Google say they were going to disable ActiveSync for WP users only. They never said anything even remotely close to that. This move affects Gmail users the same whether they use WP, iOS, Blackberry, or whatever else that isn't Android. Because they didn't take the time out to explain to you exactly how much it will save them is irrelevant, and doesn't even begin to refute anything I've said.

    Assuming your friends currently have Gmail accounts, they will be just fine should they decide to purchase WP8 devices. And if you know anyone else that has concerns, those are easily alleviated by scooting on over to Gmail.com and creating an account before January 30th.

    Problem solved.
    12-16-2012 10:09 PM
  22. omniusovermind's Avatar
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned www.startpage.com for searching
    12-16-2012 11:21 PM
  23. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    I'm surprised nobody has mentioned www.startpage.com for searching
    Here is another one. https://www.ixquick.com/
    12-16-2012 11:31 PM
  24. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Google is becoming closed and proprietary, at the expense of usability. Just like Apple Maps -- Apple didn't want to pay the small fee to Google for maps and delivered a much worse experience. Now, Google doesn't want to pay the small fee to Microsoft for ActiveSync and is delivering a much worse experience. I suspect it will end much the same way for Google as it did for Apple -- legions of enraged users whose quality of experience has plummeted, all seeking out alternatives.
    12-16-2012 11:37 PM
  25. a5cent's Avatar
    I'll give it one more shot:

    how is a move that only affects NEW Gmail users somehow *not* about Gmail?
    Starting January 30, 2013, consumers won't be able to set up new devices using Google Sync.
    a)
    You say it only affects NEW gmail users. According to Google that is false. It affects anyone attempting to setup a new sync relationship. In other words, it affects every new WP owner that didn't previously set up an active GoogleSync relationship. If I change jobs, and my new employer uses shared Google calendars (most companies don't pay for Google apps), then I'm affected.
    b)
    I didn't say it wasn't about gmail. I said: "This isn't just about gmail".

    Assuming your friends currently have Gmail accounts, they will be just fine should they decide to purchase WP8 devices.
    At least based on Google's description of the situation, that statement is false (see above).

    What else could it possibly be about? You're not making any sense to me.
    Google Sync was designed to allow access to Gmail, Google Calendar, and Contacts via the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync protocol.
    Gmail, calendar and contacts... again, if this would only affect syncing with gmail I would agree. Syncing with shared calendars is the bigger issue.

    Google, choosing to dump ActiveSync for NEW Gmail users will not have to pay said license fee to Microsoft (again, only for new accounts). By extension, this will save them money over the long run. I sense that you have difficulty seeing how that adds up.
    I fully understood how you assume the costs for EAS licensing adds up. I simply doubt your assumptions are correct. You assume Google is paying a license fee, based on the number of users with an EAS connection. Microsoft has no way of validating the user count (as you said yourself, this doesn't just apply to Microsoft's own devices), so I'm doubtful Microsoft would draw up a contract based on those numbers. You also likely don't realize that rights to use EAS are granted through an IP license, meaning Google was given a set of printed standards against which Google developed their own EAS compatible software. Such IP licensing agreements don't usually incur costs on a per-user basis, which is why I find that my assumption is more likely the correct one. That alone would refute everything you've said. Granted, this too is an assumption, but like I said... I find it far more likely to be correct.

    Stop trying to make this into a Google vs WP debate.
    The real issue is not Google vs. WP, but Google having gained enough influence to stop supporting what amounts to an industry standard, primarily motivated by the fact that Microsoft owns that de facto standard. It isn't me that is making this into a Google vs. WP debate. Almost every tech site on the web has framed it as such (not a fan, but just as an example).

    All quotations of Google were taken from their original blog post.
    12-16-2012 11:45 PM
196 ... 34567 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-30-2012, 04:20 AM
  2. I dare you to try and get a Dual Core vs Single Core Confab out of this one
    By baseballbert in forum The "Off Topic" Lounge
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 02:29 PM
  3. Podcasts out of order after sync
    By MadGaffler in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-30-2011, 02:33 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD
";