- 12-16-2012, 11:01 AM #101
- 12-16-2012, 02:29 PM #104
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 07:20 PM. Reason: see edit
- 12-16-2012, 04:04 PM #105
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, 05:10 PM #107
- 242 Posts
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, 05:20 PM #108
- 4,491 Posts
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, 05:27 PM #110
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, 05:37 PM #111
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, 07:14 PM #113
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.
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.
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.
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, 07:41 PM #115
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, 07:43 PM #116
- 12-16-2012, 07:48 PM #117
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, 08:50 PM #119
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 09:29 PM. Reason: added last paragraph
- 12-16-2012, 11:09 PM #121
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.
- 12-17-2012, 12:37 AM #124
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.
- 12-17-2012, 12:45 AM #125
I'll give it one more shot:
Originally Posted by google
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.
I didn't say it wasn't about gmail. I said: "This isn't just about gmail".
Originally Posted by google
All quotations of Google were taken from their original blog post.
- By zkhazaka in forum App SpotlightReplies: 0Last Post: 06-30-2012, 05:20 AM
- By baseballbert in forum The "Off Topic" LoungeReplies: 4Last Post: 11-23-2011, 03:29 PM
- By MadGaffler in forum Windows Phone 7Replies: 2Last Post: 08-30-2011, 03:33 AM