google. I'm out of their ecosystem 100% now.

[thor_molecules]

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.

 

[omniusovermind]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned www.startpage.com for searching

 

[Laura Knotek]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned www.startpage.com for searching

Here is another one. https://www.ixquick.com/

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

Actually, I'm positive cost reductions were almost an irrelevant part of what motivated Apple and Google.

Google wants to control the synchronization standards between devices. Interestingly, their calendar sync implementation is CalDAV based, but not CalDAV compliant... Google has already started adding their own extensions to the standard... the same story as webkit basically... it's the same tactic Microsoft used in the 1990's known as embrace, extend, extinguish.

For Apple, cost reductions are non-existent. Recreating Google's mapping experience on iOS will cost them billions. Here too, it is about power and influence. Maps are far too important to leave them uncontested to the competition. Digital mapping is a major enabling technology which will be of fundamental importance during the next two decades. For Apple, having to rely completely on the competition for such an important piece of technology is just too much of a risk.

 

[brmiller1976]

If Apple cedes maps and navigation to Google, they lose a key linchpin of the experience on iOS. It doesn't matter how long it will take them to get it, they're not going to allow that to happen.

Of course, the correct solution is to let the user choose which mapping system he wants for himself. In this regard, Windows Phone is better than most -- it gives choice (Bing Maps, Nokia Maps, or something else).

 

[thor_molecules]

My god, this is getting ridiculous. I especially love how you carefully chopped up the quote to support your argument.

Allow me:

"Starting January 30, 2013, consumers won't be able to set up new devices using Google Sync; however, existing Google Sync connections will continue to function. Google Sync will continue to be fully supported for Google Apps for Business, Government and Education. Users of those products are unaffected by this announcement."

From: Official Google Blog: Winter cleaning

It's right there, in black and white and clear as day. You are correct that you won't be able to setup new devices, but existing users are otherwise unaffected. I don't know how else to explain that. Even in the example you provided, calendar sync would still work with your new employer because both of your Gmail accounts support CalDAV. That only helps to prove my point; this is a non-issue for most users. The fact that WP doesn't currently support CardDAV/CalDAV isn't Google's fault. Both are open source and MS is free to implement it any time they see fit.

So any bad feelings you have about this should be directed to the WP8 feedback page.

Furthermore, at no point did I attempt to discuss Microsoft's licensing structure with Google regarding ActiveSync. I have no idea about the particulars, and neither do you for that matter. However, it is quite obvious that licensing the technology costs money, and by pulling it from future accounts Google will be saving money. That was, and is my only argument.

The idea that Google should keep paying Microsoft because (what amounts to) you and a few others think they should is a bit misguided. Companies do this kind of thing ALL THE TIME, and Google is hardly unique in this regard. If Microsoft figured a way around any of the tech licensed from another company, you can bet your boots they'd go that route. How Google has become a "bully" for doing something that everyone else does I'll never know.

Your argument boils down to being upset about Google refusing to keep paying Microsoft to license proprietary technology.

.....I'm mystified that you seriously do not see how absurd that is.

 

[brmiller1976]

Existing users get screwed, too. If you have to hard-reset your phone, swap it out due to a replacement, or whatnot, your Google Sync stops working.

Google materially degraded user experience, period.

Microsoft should make that point, while also pointing out that Outlook and Microsoft Services are the only services designed to be cross-platform and completely agnostic, while Google continues to drive towards proprietary technologies that lock out users and degrade their existing experience.

iOS and Windows Phone users will get a distinctly superior experience with Microsoft Services, and an extremely poor one with Google services, thanks to this change.

 

[a5cent]

Furthermore, at no point did I attempt to discuss Microsoft's licensing structure with Google regarding ActiveSync.

No, you didn't discuss it, but your entire argument is based on an assumption concerning said licensing agreement, and completely falls apart if that assumption is false, of which I'm convinced.

Anyway, we do agree on one thing. This discussion is ridiculous. The perceived absurdity of the others arguments mystifies us both. I think we've come to the point were we can safely agree we won't be convincing one another of anything.

I could easily refute the things you've stated, again, but it wouldn't add much to what I've already said. If you go back and read my last post, you might realize it.

Your argument boils down to upset about Google refusing to keep paying Microsoft to license proprietary technology.

Not at all. I don't use GoogleSync myself. I'm merely trying to point out that this decision is more than an innocent cost cutting measure (which the vast majority of publications on the internet agree with by the way).

 

[brmiller1976]

Almost nobody who is ticked off about the EAS thing cares about "Google licensing proprietary technology."

Rather, they're rightly annoyed (if they have Google Accounts) at how Google has broken e-mail, calendar and contacts for their device. And it's not "just a Microsoft thing," either. Any OS other than Android will have a dreadful experience as a result of Google's effort to impose these new oddball proprietary offshoots of old standards from the 1990s.

 

[thor_molecules]

Existing users get screwed, too. If you have to hard-reset your phone, swap it out due to a replacement, or whatnot, your Google Sync stops working.

Google materially degraded user experience, period.

Microsoft should make that point, while also pointing out that Outlook and Microsoft Services are the only services designed to be cross-platform and completely agnostic, while Google continues to drive towards proprietary technologies that lock out users and degrade their existing experience.

iOS and Windows Phone users will get a distinctly superior experience with Microsoft Services, and an extremely poor one with Google services, thanks to this change.

That's not necessarily true. iOS users will probably be ok because CardDAV and CalDAV are natively supported. WP users will be the ones hit the hardest by this, although it's pretty trivial for Microsoft to add support for these. Hopefully they do so quickly.

 

[arrowrand]

Now, Google doesn't want to pay the small fee to Microsoft for ActiveSync and is delivering a much worse experience.

Microsoft wants Google to pay them for EAS so that WP users can better connect their WP devices to Gmail. Not a tough decision to make.

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.

This won't be anything like Apple Maps for Google. iOS users (at least every single one that I know) is using the Gmail app. And loving the new update. When I had Blackberry devices, mail went through their BIS servers, and arrived instantly.

The legions left out in the cold will be Windows Phone owners , and there isn't much reason foe Google to try. Bing is hard coded to the search button on my 822 just like it is hard coded to Google on my Nexus. If search is crippled, every other Google service is marginalized on the device.

And on the privacy thing, Bing is precisely like Google. It collects information about you on all of the Bing services that you use and displays targeted ads across all of those services. Microsoft is mining data about you too, and they're storing that data. Just like Google does.

Map data, location data, search history and on and on and on. My Lumia is collecting data in all the same ways that Android does, and Microsoft uses it for the same reason: to sell me to advertisers.

If you want to hate Google, do it. No skin off of my sack. Just don't go using Bing because you think there is a greater measure of privacy there. There isn't.

 

[thor_molecules]

No, you didn't discuss it, but your entire argument is based on an assumption concerning said licensing agreement, and completely falls apart if that assumption is false, of which I'm convinced.

Anyway, we do agree on one thing. This discussion is ridiculous. The perceived absurdity of the others arguments mystifies us both. I think we've come to the point were we can safely agree we won't be convincing one another of anything.

I could easily refute the things you've stated, again, but it wouldn't add much to what I've already said. If you go back and read my last post, you might realize it.



Not at all. I don't use GoogleSync myself. I'm merely trying to point out that this decision is more than an innocent cost cutting measure (which the vast majority of publications on the internet agree with by the way).

Realize what? You haven't provided anything of substance. You acknowledge that licensing ActiveSync comes at cost, and then you immediately turn around and argue that the cost is negligible, despite providing a shred of fact proving that to be true. Also, you've put forth the theory that Google is pulling EAS support just to shaft WP users. Another argument that has zero basis in reality.

I am not assuming that Google has to pay Microsoft to license ActiveSync. I don't have to, because I know that to be a fact. Were it not, Microsoft wouldn't be going around suing Android OEM's for using it:

Microsoft sues Motorola over Android patent infringements - Microsoft on the Issues - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

Or did you think they licensed it out for free, out of the goodness of their hearts?

Personally, I don't use Gmail anymore so I could really care less. I would feel exactly the same if folks got mad at MS for dropping some proprietary tech licensed Google if they had a more viable and cost effective alternative. That's how we should expect a company in that situation to behave because that's what smart companies do.

Good night.

 

[brmiller1976]

iOS users (at least every single one that I know) is using the Gmail app.

According to Nielsen, fewer than 10% of iOS users who use mail use an app. The vast majority use the built-in e-mail client. And that makes perfect sense -- especially when you have work e-mail as well, and need to make sure that your calendar, contacts, and e-mail can be in separate or merged views.

The legions left out in the cold will be Windows Phone owners

You just keep telling yourself that.

Google has handed Microsoft a TREMENDOUS marketing advantage, and now that Mark Penn is in charge of the "Google SWAT team" at Microsoft, I expect to see LOTS of advertising about how Google broke Gmail and Calendars/Contacts... and how Microsoft, unlike Google, is committed to a great experience for services regardless of which OS you use.

Google is proprietary. Google is closed. Google is attempting to lock consumers into its operating system, because without that lock-in, there's little reason to use a buggy malware-riddled crash-fest like Android. (Just check out the latest on Android's malware problems: Serious vulnerability reportedly leaves Samsung Galaxy S III and other devices wide open to malware | The Verge )

Microsoft is sharing. Microsoft is open. Microsoft is confident that people will choose Windows based on its superior user experience, so it sees no need to "force" people into Windows, unlike Google.

And Microsoft is going to relentlessly push that message, over and over. Microsoft works, Google doesn't. Microsoft gives a great experience on all platforms, Google doesn't. Microsoft is honest with search results, Google presents advertiser-paid search results as though they're general search results. It will be a slow and steady campaign that will continue to erode at Google's userbase and position in the market.

And I, for one, love it.

 

[a5cent]

You acknowledge that licensing ActiveSync comes at cost, and then you immediately turn around and argue that the cost is negligible

Nowhere did I argue that the cost to licensing EAS is negligible. I do not know what Google pays Microsoft for that license. What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that the cost of licensing EAS is based on user-count. That assumption is vital to your argument, and I explained why I think it is a bad one.

I am not assuming that Google has to pay Microsoft to license ActiveSync.

Can you point me to the paragraph where I accused you of assuming that? I've always shared the opinion with you, that this is a fact. It appears to me that you are seeing words in my posts that I didn't write, and not seeing those that I did.

 

[thor_molecules]

Nowhere did I argue that the cost to licensing EAS is negligible. I do not know what Google pays Microsoft for that license. What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that the cost of licensing EAS is based on user-count. That assumption is vital to your argument, and I explained why I think it is a bad one.

What difference does that make? Whether they're paying a penny per user or a nickel for a billion licenses, they are still paying. In trying to nitpick, you're missing the point completely. I'll say it again here: Microsoft charges for companies to license ActiveSync. It is not a free service. What they charge specifically, I don't know and don't care.

I know that they charge however, and that is the only point.

Can you point me to the paragraph where I accused you of assuming that? I've always shared the opinion with you, that this is a fact. It appears to me that you are seeing words in my posts that I didn't write, and not seeing those that I did.

You have to read the whole post for that to make sense. Right after that sentence I went on to say that I don't have to "assume" that Google is paying to license ActiveSync, because I know they are. The fact that Microsoft has sued Android OEM's (and others) in the past for not getting a license through the proper channels proves that to be true (see the link).

 

[brmiller1976]

Google seems to want things both ways. When there's intellectual property that isn't licensed to them, they just take it and dare the IP holder to sue them.

And when there's IP that they actually license (like ActiveSync), their support for it is inconsistent, poorly implemented and anti-user.

 

[rdubmu]

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.

If people are using Google for work, Google Apps still supports this.

EDITED: Come to think about it, my last job we used normal user Gmail, My new job in the same field uses Office 365. I have to say, Office 365 is pretty neat.

 

[a5cent]

What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that the cost of licensing EAS is based on user-count. That assumption is vital to your argument, and I explained why I think it is a bad one.

What difference does that make? Whether they're paying a penny per user or a nickel for a billion licenses, they are still paying. I'll say it again here, Microsoft charges for companies to license ActiveSync. I know that they charge, and that is the only point.

C'mon, seriously? This is the core of your argument:

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.

The above is how you justify Google's move being nothing but a cost cutting measure. However, if licensing costs are not affected by the EAS user count, then surely it is obvious that excluding future EAS users won't save Google a penny. The only thing that would save Google money is removing support for EAS completely, which they are not doing. Surely it isn't that difficult to understand what the difference is?

I'm not nitpicking. You're just choosing to ignore what doesn't fit into your world view.