01-09-2013 09:14 AM
228 12345 ...
tools
  1. briankariu's Avatar
    wow. I think most people on this thread were born post 1996...how did Microsoft become the good guy?
    First of Microsoft has never supported open standards. They would rather have people pay for standards they develop
    Secondly, windows phone is nowhere as popular as Symbian
    Thirdly if Google won't bring the apps to windows phone, Microsoft should just get a liscence from google and make the apps and
    12-17-2012 06:09 AM
  2. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Microsoft is open, Google is closed.

    Microsoft supports multiple platforms with an outstanding experience. Google is sabotaging competing platforms and trying to lock users into Android and Google Service.

    IMAP/DAV on Google is not "open." It is a forked, proprietary implementation that doesn't support push and other standard features.

    Microsoft supports an open implementation of push services on Outlook that supports the integrated mail clients on all devices. Google's proprietary, closed system requires a Google developed app to get push services on any non Google OS.

    Those are the facts.
    Last edited by brmiller1976; 12-17-2012 at 10:58 AM.
    12-17-2012 10:48 AM
  3. arrowrand's Avatar
    Microsoft is open, Google is closed.
    There is nothing open about Microsoft, unless the fact that MS openly licenses EAS to anyone willing to pay makes them "open" in your book.

    Google is sabotaging competing platforms and trying to lock users into Android and Google Service.
    iOS users far and wide would disagree. In fact, some Android users are a little twisted up about the quality of Google's iOS apps.

    IMAP /DAV on Google is not "open." It is a forked, proprietary implementation that doesn't support push and other standard features.
    Google's IMAP implementation is neither closed nor proprietary. In fact, any IMAP capable email client can access Gmail without a license or a fee. Microsoft doesn't support IMAP at all, and if they did this entire conversation is moot. Every other mobile OS that matters supports IMAP, but since MS doesn't this is Google's fault? That's ridiculous.

    Microsoft supports an open implementation of push services on Outlook that supports the integrated mail clients on all devices. Google's proprietary, closed system requires a Google developed app to get push services on any non Google OS.
    By open support, you mean that Microsoft offers push on any device that supports and pays for EAS. That's not open at all.

    And just as a side note, my Gmail shows up in Thunderbird before the Gmail app on my Nexus via Google's IMAP implementation.
    Those are the facts.
    Your "facts" are contrived to support your own position.
    12-17-2012 12:47 PM
  4. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Microsoft is open. All major phone OSes can get Microsoft services without restrictions.

    Google is closed. Major OSes cannot get push services at all, others require proprietary apps to get push.

    It really is that simple.
    12-17-2012 08:57 PM
  5. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Microsoft is open. All major phone OSes can get Microsoft services without restrictions.

    Google is closed. Major OSes cannot get push services at all, others require proprietary apps to get push.

    It really is that simple.
    Thanks for clarifying what you meant. When I read or hear "open", I think of FOSS, which most certainly does not indicate any Microsoft products.
    12-17-2012 08:59 PM
  6. arrowrand's Avatar
    Microsoft is open. All major phone OSes can get Microsoft services without restrictions.
    I doubt that any company like Google, Apple or RIM would say that EAS is restriction free when it comes with a license and fees.
    12-17-2012 09:40 PM
  7. a5cent's Avatar
    I doubt that any company like Google, Apple or RIM would say that EAS is restriction free when it comes with a license and fees.
    Hey arrowrand, I think the argument you are having with Miller amounts to nothing but a misunderstanding.

    In the software world, the term "open" (or open source) is traditionally used to describe exactly what llak611 mentioned, namely FOSS. In no way do the terms "open" or "free" (as in free speech) imply that such software comes without a licensing cost.

    Stating that EAS can not be an open standard, due to the fact that it requires companies using it to pay an IP licensing fee, is therefore incorrect.

    However, I still agree that EAS is not an open standard, as Microsoft doesn't release source code that anyone could simply integrate, extend, copy or otherwise use. All you get as an EAS licensee is a set of specifications. That certainly isn't open.

    However, Miller isn't using the term "open" in that way at all. He is simply saying that anyone that is willing to license EAS gets complete access to the entire specification, at which point they can implement ActiveSync's full feature set. In that sense EAS certainly is open, as everyone gets the same access Microsoft does. Everything about Exchange's synching protocols is laid bare, albeit at a price.

    In comparison to EAS, the synchronization protocols supported by Google (CalDAV and CardDAV) are truly open standards. Unfortunately, Google's implementation of those standards go beyond what is in the specification. This is somewhat disturbing, as those extra features are neither open, nor publicly documented. From this point of view, Google's implementation of those standards may be considered less open than Microsoft's EAS, because nobody gets access to the proprietary parts, not even for a price. It is absolutely certain, that those proprietary parts will give Android devices access to features that neither WP nor iOS can match, when using Google's services. It is Google's right to do so, whether that is fair or unfair is irrelevant, but it certainly isn't "open".

    Neither approach is truly "open", at least not in the traditional sense of the word. I prefer Microsoft's approach, but I guess that is debatable.
    12-17-2012 10:52 PM
  8. arrowrand's Avatar
    Hey arrowrand, I think the argument you are having with Miller amounts to nothing but a misunderstanding.
    But its not. I made reference to that your point in my reply to him.

    Here's how the whole thing goes for me.

    EAS isn't free. That, right there, as a business decision for Google would be enough for me.

    EAS is not perfect. I added my Google account to my Lumia and my contacts appeared to sync, but were horribly screwed up.

    1. Contacts that had more than 3 or 4 phone numbers only had those first few imported as numbers. All the rest were added as text notes.

    Big deal, right? I have a spam contact with over 200 phone numbers. My phone forwards all of those calls immediately to Google Voice where that caller is blocked. It is a big deal. To me. My Lumia only saw the first few phone numbers.

    2. Any phone number that wasn't described as home, office or work was ignored.

    3. Any contact with more than two addresses had the excess ignored.

    4. Any contact with a custom description for their address had it ignored. Meaning, if I listed your work address as "South Office" it wasn't imported at all, it was ignored.

    5. Business contacts with more than one contact person added were ignored. Not that the contact was added with only one person listed, the entire contact was simply left out.

    I did try deleting the sync data and did an export/import of my data the hard way. Same exact result.

    I may have had more issues than that, but that's all I saw. I removed my account from the phone, put my main SIM back in my Nexus and that the was that.

    You can say that the issues that I had were specifically because of Google's CardDAV implementation, but that doesn't really matter.

    EAS and Google contacts don't mix well for many people. EAS has serious limitations, and MS wants money for it.

    I'm not inclined to leave Google's services. If you and you're all in with MS, WP8, outlook.com and EAS then go. Export your data from Google, import it to Outlook and be done.

    Me, I like the Lumia and WP8 is growing on me. The limitations in Outlook.com are more than I can get used to.
    12-18-2012 09:17 AM
  9. socialcarpet's Avatar
    As much as I dislike Google in many ways, I disagree with this thread completely.

    Microsoft has a much worse history of trying to lock out competitors, for example the way they hunted Netscape into extinction forcing IE down everyone's throats. The way they tried to force everyone to use their proprietary version of java and a dozen other examples of intimidating competitors, absorbing them etc. Making Word/Office the defacto standard where you need a damn $300 office suite to have interoperability with the rest of the world (mostly since rectified with the free Office web apps though)

    Microsoft has since gotten a bit better about this stuff, I think in part because they have some humility now that they aren't quite as omnipotent as they once were, and we are all benefiting from that. Microsoft usually does their best work when they are hungry and it's really only been the last few years or so that Microsoft has made anything I had any interest in. But man did they hit the ball out of the park with Zune, Xbox, Windows 7 and Windows Phone.

    Google is for a more "open" web in most ways and they do give stuff away for free. They are basically the antithesis of Microsoft in many ways. It's just that the reason they do these things is somewhat insidious, i.e. they want to infomine every orifice of your digital life in exchange for the free stuff.

    What Microsoft needs to do is focus on making all their Windows OS's as good as they can possibly be, never rest on their laurels and do some clever, pointed advertising that points out what makes their stuff better. Particularly with Windows Phone and Windows RT versus Android. Android is the elephant in the room, not Apple and iOS.
    12-18-2012 05:15 PM
  10. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Chrome is also spyware. Which is why, if a developer demands that I run Chrome to view his website, I inform him that he's either going to develop something truly open (or go without me using it).
    Chrome has an incognito mode. Does IE?
    12-18-2012 05:32 PM
  11. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Basically, all consumers are pawns in Apple's and Google's fight for dominance over the mobile web, and Microsoft's hope of preventing that.

    Put yourself in Microsoft's position. Would you allow Safari and/or Chrome on WP8?
    Microsoft is in the same battle over the mobile web, they just brought a knife to a gun fight and got there a little late.

    Anyone who thinks Microsoft or Google or Apple or any corporation is a champion of the everyman and looking for for the little guy is clueless. All these companies care about is their own profits and control over you and your information so they can make more money.

    That is the real reason Microsoft wants to push IE and Bing on us like this, which I'd kind of be OK with if both of those products didn't offer a sub-par experience compared to their closest competitors.

    Websites are being designed for WebKit. That is the reality. Does anyone really believe that if we all pray hard enough they are magically all going to start working extra hard to make sure their websites work on the Trident browser that 1% of the smartphone market uses?

    It's not going to happen. Even if WP and Win RT marketshare triple tomorrow, there is still little reason for them to bother making sure their drop down menus work right on our phones.

    So what can Microsoft do? They can decide they care more about the end user experience and get out of the way so we can have non-IE browsers, or they can hang on stubbornly trying to make IE stick against all odds.

    I'm not sure how it will all play out. I don't have too much invested in it because 90% of the websites I go to work fine on IE anyway. But those 10% are kind of annoying and Bing is still mediocre no matter what brmiller1976 or any of the rest of you say.
    12-18-2012 05:42 PM
  12. a5cent's Avatar
    Hey arrowrand, I think the argument you are having with Miller amounts to nothing but a misunderstanding.
    But it's not. <rest snipped>
    I didn't say your general criticism of EAS was unjustified. Your synching experience truly was horrid (wow!). I'm only objecting to way the term "open" was being used. Anyone assuming either Google or Microsoft are interested in building truly open software (using the traditional definition of the world) is simply nave. Neither of these companies are charities. Both strive to earn money and increase their power and influence, none of which is achievable with truly open software. We will get some truly open software from both companies, from time to time, but never in those areas that are of strategic importance. The synching interface (between devices and ecosystems) is an area of strategic importance. That is why it isn't open and never will be. That is the only misunderstanding I'm addressing.

    EAS is not perfect. EAS has serious limitations, and MS wants money for it.
    This is a completely different topic from my previous post, and I agree, EAS isn't perfect. No synchronization technology is. EAS isn't in any way as incapable as you are making it out to be though. EAS is a protocol developed specifically to sync the information stored and managed by Microsoft's Exchange Server. EAS is highly optimized to sync such data with as little overhead as possible, and it is extremely good at it.

    The root of your horrid experience boils down to the fact, that Google's contacts and Exchange Server's contacts are stored in entirely incompatible data structures. There is no direct mapping between the two, and by extension, neither to the format used to store contacts on WP. Trying to sync data between two different data structures, that aren't semantically equivalent, is doomed to fail, no matter what protocol is used to exchange that data. CardDAV will do no better.

    In addition to that, at least one of your issues also boils down to Google simply not exchanging that data over EAS. Remember, EAS only defines how systems speak with each other, but not what is said.

    Solving your issues would require Google and Microsoft to standardize the features and data structures involved in contact management. That won't happen any time soon unfortunately.

    Anyway, I realize this explanation doesn't make your situation any better. I wish I could help. I'm only attempting to promote a better understanding of what is going on.

    For the vast majority of users, going all in with outlook.com would be the best path to take. Ironically, such an approach is least viable for enthusiasts like yourself, to whom being able to do so would be most important.

    On a side note:

    CardDAV also has its weaknesses. It is a more general purpose protocol than EAS is, as it was designed to work with a multitude of personal information management systems. Being more general always implies being less efficient though. CardDAV will take longer and exchange much more data than EAS to complete the same sync task. The main benefit to CardDAV is that it comes without legal restrictions to Google. They can do whatever they want with it, standards compliant or not.
    12-18-2012 06:57 PM
  13. dogfish54's Avatar
    Chrome has an incognito mode. Does IE?
    IE has 'inprivate browsing' which started in either IE8 or IE9. From memory it was there before my install of firefox.

    I agree with the OP in the way that Microsoft generally 'plays nice' .. at least in the last ten years. Their support is great, they license their tech to others that want to pay a reasonable fee and they open partner with others which has helped them grow.

    I am a little bit of a Microsoft fanboy, but I don't think I'm blind. I am irked by the business model of Google, it feels like a 'no money down' buy now, pay with your information kinda deal. At least with Microsoft or Apple I know what I am getting upfront.

    Google have only just started to turn on Microsoft, I think this is a sign of their popularity. These things have a way of working themselves out - only question is how long it takes, and the long-term impact.
    12-18-2012 07:00 PM
  14. a5cent's Avatar
    Microsoft has a much worse history of trying to lock out competitors, for example the way they hunted Netscape into extinction forcing IE down everyone's throats.
    Hey socialcarpet.

    I was opposed to many things Microsoft did back in the 90's, including the events you mentioned. Today, Microsoft is much less anti-competitive, but humility has nothing to do with it. Regulators and fines are what turned them around.

    Anyway, I ask you this. Why are you not equally appalled at Google attempting to force WebKit (a.k.a Chrome) down everyone's throats? It's the exact same behaviour, right?

    Google has literally taken a page out of Microsoft's former playbook. You can actually watch them apply Microsoft's old embrace, extend and exterminate tactics to almost every area of technology they touch. CardDAV is just one example, WebKit is another, many more exist.

    Today, Google is just as bad as Microsoft was back then, possibly worse.

    Google is for a more "open" web in most ways and they do give stuff away for free. They are basically the antithesis of Microsoft in many ways.
    I've elaborated on one instance where this simply isn't true (CardDAV). Like I said, thinking Google is any more "open" than Microsoft is simply nave. It was true a decade ago, but it is true no longer. Times have changed, but many have yet to recognize it. Unfortunately, todays situation is also much more complicated than Microsoft's ever was. Just to understand exactly what is going on requires expert knowledge of the markets, the business models involved, and software technology. Google has much more to hide behind than Microsoft ever did.

    Websites are being designed for WebKit. That is the reality. Does anyone really believe that if we all pray hard enough they are magically all going to start working extra hard to make sure their websites work on the Trident browser that 1% of the smartphone market uses?.
    No, but they damn sure will if market share of none-WebKit based mobile browsers reaches 20%. Praying is not required.

    So what can Microsoft do? They can decide they care more about the end user experience and get out of the way so we can have non-IE browsers, or they can hang on stubbornly trying to make IE stick against all odds.
    That sounds like a double standard to me. Apparently you were completely opposed to Microsoft killing off Netscape back in the day. Why is there nothing wrong with Google killing off IE? Google's and Apple's use of WebKit is a textbook example of the embrace, extend and extinguish tactic. In my view you can only make a consistent argument by supporting either both instances of such behaviour, or neither.

    Consider also, that this isn't just going to take down IE. If IE goes, so does Firefox and Opera, as they too aren't based on WebKit.

    On a final note, the whole WebKit battle only marginally involves browsers. The reason we focus so much on browsers, is because it's the only part of the battle we as consumers are directly exposed to. It's really about who controls the world wide web. Personally, I don't want that power in the hands of a single company. For that reason alone I will vow to never support WebKit. At least in the long run, I'm sure it would be in every consumers best interest to do the same.

    In regard to all the other things you mentioned, our opinions line up quite well.
    Last edited by a5cent; 12-18-2012 at 10:29 PM. Reason: Spelling
    12-18-2012 08:05 PM
  15. a5cent's Avatar
    I'm not sure how it will all play out. I don't have too much invested in it because 90% of the websites I go to work fine on IE anyway. But those 10% are kind of annoying and Bing is still mediocre no matter what brmiller1976 or any of the rest of you say.
    Since you quoted me, I must assume "you people" refers to me, but I'm not making the same argument Miller is. I ask you to differentiate between the two.

    Anyway, until Bing includes the ability to search by date, I'm not using it either.
    12-18-2012 08:09 PM
  16. arrowrand's Avatar
    EAS isn't in any way as incapable as you are making it out to be though.
    I'm not trying to make EAS out to be anything, I'm just relating what actually happened to me after numerous attempts to get my contacts to sync with my Lumia. Anyone that has the same type of contact structure that I do will experience the same issues. That's just how it is.

    The root of your horrid experience boils down to the fact, that Google's contacts and Exchange Server's contacts are stored in entirely incompatible data structures. There is no direct mapping between the two, and by extension, neither to the format used to store contacts on WP. Trying to sync data between two different data structures, that aren't semantically equivalent, is doomed to fail, no matter what protocol is used to exchange that data. CardDAV will do no better.
    Exactly. So if Google's implementation of CardDAV is so horribly incompatible with EAS, what should Google do? Do they dumb Google Contacts, or do they begin to phase out EAS? We already know the answer to that one.

    For the vast majority of users, going all in with outlook.com would be the best path to take. Ironically, such an approach is least viable for enthusiasts like yourself, to whom being able to do so would be most important.
    For the record, had my contact sync with Outlook.com gone perfectly I had no intention of abandoning the Google way.

    Now, that said, how can you make a statement like that without knowing the individual circumstances of the vast majority of people? In my experience, web services come down to preference. One prefers Hotmail/Outlook while another would prefer Gmail. Or Yahoo for that matter. How can you then presume to say that the better path for the vast majority is to choose Outlook?

    The best path is for the vast majority to try more than one web service and pick what works best for their needs and preferences.
    12-18-2012 09:14 PM
  17. a5cent's Avatar
    For the vast majority of users, going all in with outlook.com would be the best path to take.
    how can you make a statement like that without knowing the individual circumstances of the vast majority of people? In my experience, web services come down to preference. One prefers Hotmail/Outlook while another would prefer Gmail. Or Yahoo for that matter. How can you then presume to say that the better path for the vast majority is to choose Outlook?
    Yep, I made a mistake. What I meant to say was: "the vast majority of WP users". The reasoning being, even if you prefer Google's services, the average user (in terms of technical capability) will simply have less of a hassle that way. I wasn't trying to say that one companies services, in terms of usability and features, is objectively better than another.

    The best path is for the vast majority to try more than one web service and pick what works best for their needs and preferences.
    Yes, but the operating systems we use are part of those ecosystems. If you insist on using Google's services, you can, but getting the most value out of that implies also getting an Android device. Google and Apple are pulling up walls all around their ecosystems. Microsoft would likely do the same if they were in a position to do so, but they aren't. Doing what you are attempting too, namely freely mixing and matching companies online services and mobile operating systems, will get ever more unpleasant going forward.

    I'm not trying to make EAS out to be anything.
    It sounded that way. You were, after all, throwing adjectives at it. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

    Exactly. So if Google's implementation of CardDAV is so horribly incompatible with EAS, what should Google do? Do they dumb Google Contacts, or do they begin to phase out EAS? We already know the answer to that one.
    Sorry, but I'm going to be nitpicky here. It doesn't make sense to say CardDAV is incompatible with EAS. It's like saying English and French are incompatible. You may be able to express certain ideas better in one or the other language, but it's hard to imagine what English and French being incompatible would really mean. The same applies to CardDAV and EAS. I get the feeling that you don't entirely understand what EAS and CardDAV are or do, but you shouldn't have to either.

    As far as I can tell, this is where we stand:

    • We agree that Google's and Microsoft's PIM (personal information management) systems offer different feature sets, which is why you can't just willy nilly plunk all the information contained in one system into the other (no matter what method of "plunking" we choose).
    • We agree that it makes sense for Google to abandon EAS (just don't expect your Google-WP syncing experience to get any better with CardDAV... it won't, because both companies PIM systems will remain incompatible).
    • We agree your syncing experience sucked, big time, and that WP won't meet all your needs, specifically because you use features only available in Google's PIM system (which I fully understand makes complete sense in your situation).


    I don't think we have anything left to argue over at this point.
    Last edited by a5cent; 12-18-2012 at 10:49 PM. Reason: Spelling
    12-18-2012 10:24 PM
  18. arrowrand's Avatar
    Yep, I made a mistake. What I meant to say was: "the vast majority of WP users".
    That makes sense, and I can mostly agree with that. However, most Google Contacts users that haven't spent years tweaking their contacts in the ways that I have would likely face fewer issues than I did.

    It sounded that way. You were, after all, throwing adjectives at it. Sorry if I misunderstood that.
    The list of 5 issues that I had would tend to support any position that I would take about EAS being an inferior product for me (and those like me). I was more defending the position that my list was an accurate account of the facts in my use of Outlook.com.

    Sorry, but I'm going to be nitpicky here.
    Yeah, pick away, I didn't say that right. What I meant to say was that the data that can be synced with Google's CardDAV and EAS are incompatible. Google offers me much greater customization in my contacts details, and EAS doesn't properly deal with those customizations.
    a5cent likes this.
    12-19-2012 07:13 AM
  19. Black Helicopter Steve's Avatar
    I wouldn't worry about Microsoft holding back against Google. The real question is rather whether it will bear any fruit or not. This is quite unlike when Microsoft was the overarching enemy in 90's; people love Google. There was no such love for Microsoft back when it was laying waste to Netscape just acceptance. The 90's image of Microsoft still pervades the public perception of Microsoft to this day. (How many times to you still see "M$"?) And they are the underdog now. It's weird.
    12-19-2012 03:51 PM
  20. brmiller1976's Avatar
    The latest closed and proprietary attack from Google -- changing its closed and proprietary non documented YouTube API again to break all third party YouTube players and viewers.
    12-20-2012 09:24 AM
  21. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Even if Google's forked and largely incompatible bastardized versions of IMAP and CalDAV offer benefits to a small contingent of users who desire "advanced customization," there's absolutely no benefit to users in discontinuing the battery-efficient, secure and mobile-optimized EAS standard in favor of 1980s tech like IMAP.
    a5cent likes this.
    12-20-2012 09:28 AM
  22. socialcarpet's Avatar
    Anyway, I ask you this. Why are you not equally appalled at Google attempting to force WebKit (a.k.a Chrome) down everyone's throats? It's the exact same behaviour, right?
    Because Google didn't invent WebKit, Apple did, and it's not being forced on anyone. It's the defacto standard. Trident isn't and it never will be. I'm not asking Microsoft to give up on IE, I'm asking them to GTFO of the way so that we can use alternative WebKit browsers on WP if we want.

    Google has literally taken a page out of Microsoft's former playbook. You can actually watch them apply Microsoft's old embrace, extend and exterminate tactics to almost every area of technology they touch. CardDAV is just one example, WebKit is another, many more exist.
    No. WebKit is an open, free standard that doesn't belong to Google. CardDAV is an open, free standard. Microsoft's EAS and their Trident browser are NOT.

    Today, Google is just as bad as Microsoft was back then, possibly worse.
    I agree to an extent, though Google is much smarter about it because they don't extort money directly from their customers who then wind up resenting them for exorbitant prices for mediocre software and draconian EULA's the way Microsoft did.

    I've elaborated on one instance where this simply isn't true (CardDAV). Like I said, thinking Google is any more "open" than Microsoft is simply nave. It was true a decade ago, but it is true no longer.
    I guess we have different definitions of open. I think of open as standards which I used by multiple OEM's and are not subject to licensing agreements which involve money changing hands. Open also often means open source, as in the code is shared so changes and improvements can be made. How many examples of either of those can you cite which came from Microsoft?

    No, but they damn sure will if market share of none-WebKit based mobile browsers reaches 20%. Praying is not required.
    Maybe you're willing to wait 10 years for Microsoft to miraculously get to 20% marketshare with Trident mobile browsers so webpages work properly on your devices. I'm not. I'd rather see Microsoft loosen up a bit on this and allow us to use browsers that work with the rest of the Internet while they are busy gaining that 20% marketshare. I don't think it's too much to ask.

    That sounds like a double standard to me. Apparently you were completely opposed to Microsoft killing off Netscape back in the day. Why is there nothing wrong with Google killing off IE? Google's and Apple's use of WebKit is a textbook example of the embrace, extend and extinguish tactic. In my view you can only make a consistent argument by supporting either both instances of such behaviour, or neither.
    Well, not exactly. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not defending what Google did. I think it was a deliberate tactic designed to undermine Microsoft. As far as WebKit goes, it is what EVERYONE else uses except Microsoft. Not exactly the same thing as Microsoft coming along with a 95% share of the desktop OS market and then crushing any competition in web browsers with a multitude of tactics which did nothing to benefit consumers or anyone or anything else other than Microsoft. What did we get in return? Years of battling over websites which would work with one browser but not the other. Terrible security problems with IE that lasted for years. For what?

    Consider also, that this isn't just going to take down IE. If IE goes, so does Firefox and Opera, as they too aren't based on WebKit.
    IE isn't going anywhere. Microsoft still has 90% of the desktop OS market.

    One way Firefox and Opera could get a boost is if Microsoft would get out of the way and allow them to build browsers for WP and Windows RT.

    On a final note, the whole WebKit battle only marginally involves browsers. The reason we focus so much on browsers, is because it's the only part of the battle we as consumers are directly exposed to. It's really about who controls the world wide web. Personally, I don't want that power in the hands of a single company. For that reason alone I will vow to never support WebKit. At least in the long run, I'm sure it would be in every consumers best interest to do the same.
    Agreed, but that has nothing to do with WebKit. It has to do with Google itself and I'm with you on that. They have already become far too powerful and far too dangerous and they have done it much more cleverly than Microsoft did, so that it will be virtually impossible to pursue them under anti-trust law the way they did with Microsoft.

    In regard to all the other things you mentioned, our opinions line up quite well.
    :)
    RyanR47 likes this.
    12-20-2012 02:18 PM
  23. RyanR47's Avatar
    As a customer and end user, I don't care what protocol or technology Microsoft or Google uses. I would say Microsoft needs to loosen up and learn few stuff from Google before bashing them.

    Googles Email, Contacts & Calendars works great with my Lumia 920 (windows phone 8), iPad mini (iOS), Mac OS X (Sparrow), Windows 8 Pro and tons more with other beautify third party mail apps.

    Where as with Microsoft, I cant use email with third part app. Calendars and Contacts doesn't work with OS X. Its a broken experience.

    If all webpages works with every other browser in the world except for Microsoft(IE mobile & desktop ); they should go back to their drawing board and rethink their strategy.

    Now, if Microsoft can do that, they are competing and deserves to be in First Place in this EcoSystem War. If they are not bothered and is happy being in 3rd/4th place with a system full of compromise, then I take my words back and will stop whining.
    12-20-2012 04:31 PM
  24. brmiller1976's Avatar
    Where as with Microsoft, I cant use email with third part app. Calendars and Contacts doesn't work with OS X. Its a broken experience.
    Sure it does. Microsoft even supports dead platforms like the Mac with world-class software like Office and Exchange.

    If all webpages works with every other browser in the world except for Microsoft(IE mobile & desktop ); they should go back to their drawing board and rethink their strategy.
    Except incompatibilities even exist across WebKit-derived browsers, since every browser that uses webkit is forked and proprietary.
    12-20-2012 10:19 PM
  25. smoledman's Avatar
    Google went down today, I've never seen a Bing outage.
    12-20-2012 11:06 PM
228 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-28-2012, 11:26 PM
  2. Microsoft finally sues Google directly for patent infringement
    By 12Danny123 in forum The "Off Topic" Lounge
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-21-2012, 02:14 PM
  3. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 10:47 PM
  4. I think Google just cleared the way for Windows Surface with Nexus 7
    By ninjaap in forum General Desktop, Laptop & Tablet Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-29-2012, 11:11 AM
  5. Microsoft says they're in it for the (very) long haul
    By HeyCori in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 08:23 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD