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

[anon(1019781)]

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

Spoken like a true Google ******.

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

Back on topic... Google is truly trying to change the OS wars by limiting services available to WP. This can be good or bad depending on your preferences.

It's always bad. No matter what. There's no preferences involved. Everything these companies do against one another hurts the consumers.

 

[Reflexx]

Only a few people hate Google.

I don't hate Google. But if they want to make it more difficult for me to use their services on my phone, then I will just use a different service.

 

[rich4A1]

I wish I can do the same but I'm required to use Google Calendar and Drive at work. I've been advocating for SkyDrive but haven't succeeded yet.

 

[a5cent]

Only a few people hate Google.

I don't hate Google. But if they want to make it more difficult for me to use their services on my phone, then I will just use a different service.

I don't hate Google either, and I don't think anyone should. Actually, I can't think of a single tech company worth hating. If we're going to hate a company, there are much better candidates to be found in the financial and insurance industries. Big oil also offers a worthy selection. A company like Monsanto is also a good pick... with so many to choose from, why hate a tech company? It makes no sense.

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

As long as we can choose not to use their services (edit: and prevented from misusing monopoly power), we're fine.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[Laura Knotek]

Few people hate Google... It is just important to point out the reality of Google, when possible, because they have such a good PR machine. Way too many people think that Google is a nonprofit "do good" company who creates free software and services to make the world a better place.

That's true. I do have to say Google has invested those profits made via advertising well. I've taken the Bing challenge. Google won.

 

[Luminatic]

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!

 

[Reflexx]

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.

 

[Luminatic]

Hah. Found another alternative to goole: duckduckgo! I can sort my search results by date there,will try out this search engine in the next few days.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[thor_molecules]

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.

 

[brmiller1976]

The cost of an ActiveSync license is likely less than a thousandth of a penny per user. Google probably pays more to license codecs for YouTube.

 

[a5cent]

I think all this anger towards Google for removing ActiveSync functionality is a bit misguided. I suspect that few, if anyone around here is aware that they have to pay Microsoft to license the technology. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense to ditch them in favor of an open source alternative, seeing as how the vast majority of Gmail accounts using ActiveSync were free -- meaning that Google wasn't making any money from the user to cover the cost.

1)
Google never makes money off any of their users. Google's CFO may have decided that ActiveSync should be the only instance, within the entire corporation, where users should be covering their costs, but I find that unlikely. There is much more to this decision than just financials.

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

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

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

Personally, I've become less and less sympathetic towards Google over the years, and at least on my part, this also amounts to the last drop in the bucket.

 

[brmiller1976]

Microsoft is suing Motorola for using ActiveSync without paying license fees. It's also possible that Google did this as a swipe back in the ever-continuing warm-war between the two companies.

 

[thor_molecules]

1)
Google never makes money off any of their users. Google's CFO may have decided that ActiveSync should be the only instance, within the entire corporation, where users should be covering their costs, but I find that unlikely. There is much more to this decision than just financials.

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

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

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

Personally, I've become less and less sympathetic towards Google over the years, and at least on my part, this also amounts to the last drop in the bucket.

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

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

People are reading way too much into this. Google is not out to get you.

 

[thor_molecules]

The cost of an ActiveSync license is likely less than a thousandth of a penny per user. Google probably pays more to license codecs for YouTube.

Even if this were true, what does that even matter? Just because they're licensing codecs for Youtube that means they should never look to save money on license fees anywhere else? Ever?

A very strange point of view, to say the least.

 

[brmiller1976]

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.

 

[jwinch2]

If MS is smart, they work on building an viable option to google reader into outlook.com very soon. That, and youtube are the big reasons I have kept my gmail active.

 

[a5cent]

I don't get how this is a shot at Microsoft considering that for one, you don't have to use Gmail at all. There are plenty of viable alternatives available that support ActiveSync just fine (Outlook.com being the most obvious). Two, if you already have a Gmail account this doesn't even affect you as ActiveSync will remain available for use.

This isn't just about gmail. Many people share Google's calendars amongst friends, family and work associates. It is a common work requirement. Unfortunately, new WP users are now left out. I can no longer recommend a WP device to my friends who have such requirements, and most of them do. That is what this move is about.

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

Furthermore, your argument is based only on the assumption that Google's decision saves them money. I haven't seen Google mention that anywhere. As Google is still offering EAS to everyone that is using it now, I see no reason why it should.

 

[JamesTBurns]

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

Isn't Safari good enough to display www.outlook.com or has iOS crippled users in thinking that if there isn't an app for it, it doesn't exist?

No, keeps giving me a mobile site. Guess I need to go get a Surface...hardy har har, not. i'll keep the iPad.