Microsoft should attack Google for its proprietary ways

[socialcarpet]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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 na?ve. 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.

 

[dogfish54]

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 ******, 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.

 

[a5cent]

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 na?ve. 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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[arrowrand]

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.

 

[a5cent]

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.

 

[arrowrand]

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.

 

[Black Helicopter Steve]

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.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[socialcarpet]

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 na?ve. 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]

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.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[smoledman]

Google went down today, I've never seen a Bing outage.

 

[imem]

Sv: Microsoft should attack Google for its proprietary ways

Well if I my tell you what I think!
They should sit down and talk this true.
If they find a solution for all to coexist I think there would be a better for the costumer
Apple and Microsoft are working together and that's not bad for any one is it?!
So if Google is targeting this as a strategy I think many more going to us Bing and that will give less add money for them. Well you se where I'm going with this.
So I like the idea of free software but as I live in the real world it's not always the best solution , and not for every one.
So Google think one more time don't think that your in a place where no one can touch you.

P's I can change my mail to another client it's no problem. And this move will give me a reason to do that.

Skickat fr?n min HTC Sensation XL with Beats Audio X315e via Tapatalk 2

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

IMO, FOSS isn't open -- it's propellerhead stuff that has no relevance to the consumer.

Openness, for 99.9% of users, means that a solution will work across platforms, without any restrictions or efforts to "firewall it out."

Google's a great example of a company that uses FOSS "standards" that it modifies and frequently changes in order to create a closed, proprietary experience.

 

[brmiller1976]

Chrome has an incognito mode. Does IE?

It's called "InPrivate." And read the license agreement for Chrome -- it still sends data about your browsing history to Google, even in "Incognito mode."

 

[arrowrand]

It's called "InPrivate." And read the license agreement for Chrome -- it still sends data about your browsing history to Google, even in "Incognito mode."

I used to use incognito mode to have 2 Gmail accounts open at the same time. Then when they made additional accounts a feature I stopped caring.

I guess if that's your porn more, you'd be more concerned about local caching of that data than anything Google might be keeping on you.

 

[arrowrand]

Openness, for 99.9% of users, means that a solution will work across platforms, without any restrictions or efforts to "firewall it out

When I think of something that works across platforms, I think of having the exact same data on different devices running different OS version without issues.

That's not what EAS does. If you've customized your Google Contacts phone, email or mailing address descriptions EAS doesn't sync any of that data. If you add more than 3 or 4 email addresses to a contact, EAS doesn't sync that as email addresses it syncs that as notes. If you have more than 2 mailing addresses for a contact, they're all ignored.

EAS doesn't work for everyone. Beat the drum about how secure or battery efficient or ubiquitous it is, but also realize that there are serious limitations in what it will do.