SuperSite Blog

You know, I've been using Macs since 1992. I admit that I use Windows only when necessary...I'm just more productive on a Mac (it's what I'm used to). Throughout the years of being a Mac user I've had to deal with that fact that hundreds if not thousands of websites only work with Internet Explorer (which Microsoft stopped developing for the Mac years ago).

When has Microsoft or developers that build applications for Windows EVER cared about being compatible for Mac users in any "real" way. I mean even the new Excel 2008 for Mac is crippled. We always just got the "go and play with your toys" type answers from the PC guys.

So please excuse us Mac users for not feeling too bad about PC users not getting the "full" experience. We've been living in that reality for years.

Mac is far (far, far, far, far) from the predominantly used platform.  And, as a general rule, you really want to develop your software for the majority.  Or at least make sure it works if you are going to advertise it to the majority.

Doc,

So the fact that people paid serious cash for this stuff makes no difference to you?  It's ok for Apple to take their money and make half-assed promises today because of a situation that was relevant years ago?

JamesNT

Doc,

When you chose to use a minority platform, you signed up for the drawbacks it brings with it. You are talking about Microsoft not choosing to continue investing in developing for a 2-3% market segment (Macs in those yesteryears).

It is not MS who put a gun to the developers' heads and made them optimize the websites for IE. It is the overwhelming marketshare of IE and Windows that made it logical and productive for every web developer and their mother to code for IE primarily.

You are getting emotional at getting a chance to snub your nose at Windows users for once. How can you objectively say that Apple is justified in not fully supporting almost 80% of the market?

Paul, if you have time (hah!), listen to MacBreak before recording Windows Weekly.  Not exactly a free pass there.

Doc72:  The Internet Explorer for Mac (long since moot) was, in its day, by far the most standards (of the time) compliant widely-used browser around.  Meaning it ALSO had trouble with many "Internet Explorer" only sites.  It was unrelated except by name to Windows Internet Explorer.

For me, the parts of MobileMe that are working are what I need (for my day-in-day-out Mac use).  But I'm very annoyed with Apple over this mess.  I wasn't expecting to bring the Vista laptop into MobileMe except by browser anyhow.

*clapping/cheering*

Right on Paul!  Great post!

@Doc72: I may not know about the "EXTREME hardship" you must go through everyday on a "software" platform which isn't fully supported by Microsoft.  That's your choice.  Enjoy!

What's really being argued here, I think, is that Apple chose to produce hardware and software which "supports" the Windows platform.  However, the level of that support is absurd.  I'm a software developer and only a hobbyist web developer, but even I know the importance of ensuring that the code I write is compatible with the platforms of the majority.  If I forget about the majority, I lose.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with Apple if they said that they only had "limited/no support" on the PC side.  If they said that their developers could only write good code for a Mac and were incapable of writing good code for PCs, then fine.

However, Apple and all the apologists tout the seamless integration between Mac and PC which is an outright lie.

Quit lying to me and I'll be more forgiving.  However, what really ticks me off is the majority.  The majority of PC users using Apple hardware and software who are letting Apple get away with it.  

Like Paul said, "Seriously, where's the outrage?".  To that I say, "RIGHT HERE!"

I'm actually going to try and stay out of this one, but Paul, get ready for a sh*t storm of comments.  Who wants to bet that this will reach 100 comments faster than any other post?  I can actually HEAR the Kool-Aid boiling right now, kind of like the slime in the generally weak Ghostbusters 2.

Doc72,

Love thy neighbor. Turn the other cheek. Forgive and forget. Love Allah! Remember, you've been wronged my son, but two wrongs don't make a right...

In all seriousness, closeminded resentment is bad business.

Wow, that was a pleasure to read. Brilliant stuff, Paul.

The part that I thought you most eloquent was the MSM not only masking of all the rough edges in Apple releases but willful subversion to do so.

HOF Post.

This kind of stuff will catch up to Apple eventually.  Some day some other company is going to come out and become the "cool" brand.  When that happens, and people don't feel they have to protect Apple to protect their image, everyone will start remembering all of these little things Apple does to sway users to their cause.

I use a Mac, and I am very happy with it, but I want to go stick my head in the sand when Apple pulls this crap.  I spend a lot of time with my head in the sand.  

I'm using leopard and MobileMe (retarded name) right now and I'm pissed.  I also use Windows nearly half the time anyway and would like a little coherency betwen the two.  What a joke...  What a double-standard.

@Admin

Actually the measure of how much of a good point Paul makes is the amount virulent venom spewed forth by the uberFanBoi's. Its been my contention that its their insecurity that fuels them so they can't help it.

It's daily grind firing up Safari and scouring the net to protect their self worth.

I actually agree with Paul. There' s a lot that doesn't make sense here for Windows users.

So use Windows Mobile. Seriously, it's not like you don't have a choice. Which is lamer?

"if you use IE, in which case you can't access MobileMe"

Uhh, no, You can access it, you just get nagged.

"and they get a total pass on this with the press."  Really, where have you been, Paul?  There's been tons of bad PR for Apple about the MobileMe launch, including the problem with the "push" label.  Tons of articles - hardly a "free pass.'  

Even Pogue noted in this story -

"So how is MobileMe? Well, let’s get the ugliness out of the way first: Its debut last week was a disaster that persisted for days. Existing .Mac members were supposed to be upgraded automatically, but many wound up having no e-mail at all for a day or two. There were bugs, glitches and error messages for days, making it one of the most ham-handed launches in Apple history."

More importantly, in his zeal to find something, anything, everything bad to say about Apple, Paul as usual misses the the big picture.  Apple actually took a major step to make a Mac only product - .Mac -- into a platform agnostic one that is more inclusive of windows users.  Is it there yet for mac or windows uers?  No.  How long has it been out?  Oh yea, less than a week.

Weedmonk - "@Admin

Actually the measure of how much of a good point Paul makes is the amount virulent venom spewed forth by the uberFanBoi's. Its been my contention that its their insecurity that fuels them so they can't help it.

It's daily grind firing up Safari and scouring the net to protect their self worth."

Wow, this post is almost the picture perfect example of a substance-free, 100%-personal attack post.  Spoken like a true believer - this idea that the more disagreement Paul get, the more "obviously" true are his statements.  Lot of logic in that one, bud.

@kale

It is definitely a double standard and is why Apple shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.  Of course I will clarify that I mean that we shouldn't let Apple apologists or evangelists get away with it.  

If you want to proclaim seamless integration "magic" than GIVE ME seamless integration "magic".

I have been a Mac user since 1984, and am tired of the compromises I have had to make to stay current in the business world. MobileMe is just another example of Apple hype. My Blackberry works just fine with Exchange and I will stay with it. I have made the break from the Mac and switched to Vista and am very happy with it!

Love your podcast with Leo. Listen to it every week. And now I've discovered your blog.

Thanks for all your ideas and rants.

@cesjr

But to reiterate Paul's point about him missing it on the syncing capabilities.  You can't tell me he didn't try doing the reverse of syncing PC with a MAC.  "Ignoring faults is a lie. Unless of course it's just ignorance. Which may be worse."

Either he properly tested and lied or he didn't properly test leading to ignorance.  I call that worse.

*looking at bquin*

I see a shifting in the "Mac Market Share".  It's maybe only a few, but there's troubles in the water.

I think it's Apple's turn to start doing what they keep blaming Microsoft for not doing.

The situation with MobileMe and Internet Explorer isn't acceptable. I would go even further, they should have a down-level version of at least Mail on the Web for IE 6 users. Even though it's not acceptable, that doesn't mean it isn't understandable to some degree from a technical level. But to be clear, theorizing why MobileMe is this way right now is not an apology for it.

It has been well publicized that Apple is using SproutCore for all the MobileMe applications. SproutCore heavily uses Javascript, and sorry, but IE 7 Javascript performance is terrible compared to Firefox 3 or Safari 3. Here is one link:

mozillalinks.org/.../firefox-3-ultimate-feature-performance

A lot of other javascript performance shootouts have stopped even comparing IE 7 to FF3 or Safari 3/WebKit nightlies, IE's JS performance is not even in the same realm. I am not saying that Apple made the right choice using SproutCore given the level of IE 6 out there (23% according to Net Application in June) and IE 7's JS performance, they should provide a version of MobileMe that works fully with IE if they want those customers. And I am not saying this fully explains their disclaimer of "modern web standards", unless you work for Apple or are following SproutCore closely, you won't know, but the link between IE 7's pokey JS implementation and SproutCore seems nearly obvious.

Firefox bookmarks not synching on either platform is just ridiculous and needs to be fixed.

As for it being OK for Apple to "insult this majority crowd", that is just absurd, you aren't being injured. MobileMe is a product that Apple gives potential customers a 60-day trial to. If as a Windows user you find that Apple's offering doesn't meet your needs/requirements, you simply don't subscribe to it. If you subscribed and then the service changed and didn't meet your needs, then outrage would be warranted because money had changed hands and the terms of the "contract" between user and service provider have changed.  No Windows user is in this situation right now, all Windows users who are interested are sampling MobileMe until at a minimum Sept. 10. The feedback mechanism to Apple is simple, you don't subscribe, they figure out why and either they don't care to address those issues for Windows users or they do to try and attract that kind of customer. It's really pretty simple.

Also, anyone with an Apple Developer Connection membership (free) and an Apple ID can file a bug on any Apple product, so if you want to see Apple address MobileMe issues for Windows users, you can simply file a bug:

bugreport.apple.com/.../signIn

I would suggest the "Other" product since neither .Mac/MobileMe are in the list.

@murdocdv:

Just went to file a bug report and GUESS WHAT? I try to log in and got this:

<begin quote>

An error has occurred. Please report the error to Apple Inc. by emailing the error detail to devbugs@apple.com.

Back

For more details on the error, click this link

Error Detail

</end quote>

I tried to click "Error Detail" and nothing happened.

GREAT!  I love Apple.  So capable and dependable.

*notice sarcasm*

Agreed - I have a Dell Laptop running Vista, I use Vista on my work computer, Leopard on an iMac at home, and just got the iPhone.  I don't want to be using cloud computing services that can't work well accross all my stuff - but there's so little out there that does.

Using Gmail is fine of course, but Live Mesh isn't up to speed yet, and trying to use SkyDrive on a Mac is also a 'half baked' experience (it requires an ActiveX control for uploading anything more than 5 files at a time).

I really hope the future holds something better than vendors trying to drag us in different directions - that's not the promise of the 'cloud'.

I may not agree with every single point, but that's a good, detailed and legitimate criticism.  While MobileMe is a great idea, there are clearly some big holes in the service, especially from the Windows side.  Anyone know if MobileMe works with IE8, which *is* more standards-based?

Microsoft has promised LiveMesh for Mac, which I'm guessing will be similarly half-baked on that platform.  I'll be interested to compare Microsoft's press coverage if and when that happens.

Pingback from  Apple&#8217;s MobileMe Isn&#8217;t All It&#8217;s Cracked Up To Be

@brostbeef

Sorry, I must be missing where the sarcasm is or if your whole post is sarcasm. The link I posted is my bookmark and works for me, but you could go to this:

http:///bugreport.apple.com

The first part was fact, the last sentence was sarcasm.

I don't know what's up that I can't access the service through either of your links, but it just doesn't let me log in.

Maybe because I'm on a PC.....   :-P

I believe that the vast majority of reviews on MobileMe’s omission of IE support are being evaluated as a ‘Technology Decision’ as opposed to a ‘Business Decision’.

It is a turbulent time for IE with firefox adoption growing and the mass hype placed on IE flaws and non-compliance with open standards. Can you think of a better time to use your loyal customer base to shift to Safari, or at the very least away from IE?

So many people say that 80% of users have IE, but what percentage of users has an iPod, or use an iPhone? Personally I can’t see a better time to make an aggressive move to gain market share.

Wars are not won by pacifism.

Brilliant.

@brostbeef

That would be a no on the PC because I hit it from my Windows Server 2003 SP2 box before posting that reply to you :-)

Okay, Paul... or should I say Mr. Umbrage... here goes my the biggest post ever.

First, let me filter out your biased language, hackish jabs, and choice ignorance's  to distill the points on which there should be universal agreement:

#1.  Having the me.com site only render properly in Firefox and Safari isn't addressing the market well, given how many iPhone users probably use IE.  Though maybe their own research shows that to be a different.  Maybe iPhone users on Windows tend to be Firefox or Safari users.  We can't know that.  Still.  It seems like a bad choice.  it's a strategic choice, perhaps, as Microsoft has often made.  But one that will frustrate users... which isn't good for a user-driven company like Apple.

#2.  Not supporting IE for the web, while supporting it for bookmark syncing and excluding Firefox bookmarking is idiotic.  Talk about putting users in a bind.  What bookmark syncing?  Use IE.  Want to actually use me.com?  Use Firefox.  Safari obviously works and is strategic.  It's also a really nice, super fast browser, despite your ongoing bashing of it, but it's an also-ran so whatever.

#3. Coming out with a rah rah message of "push everything" when in fact the desktop experience is not push was a major blunder.  Is it a major user problem?  Probably not.  Is a 15 minute wait the end of the world?  That depends on the use case.  Does it invalidate the rest of the service?  Obviously not.

#4. Not supporting Windows Calendar with MobileMe, and therefore requiring the purchase of Outlook for desktop calendar syncing, is stupid and reduces the functionality of the service for those users that lack Outlook on Windows.  Apple should either support Vista's Calendar, or include Outlook with the iPhone.   No question.

There.  That's dispassionate criticism with minimal snark on which we can agree.  Now... on to your awful, awful tone and dishonest jabs and omissions.

First up... cloud computing.  You're a user of Gmail and Google Calendar. Browser-only.  Me.com + iPhone/iPod Touch gives you that same functionality with the "exchange for the rest of us" instant push delivery.  Given your own use, I'd have expected you to focus on how people may forgo using the desktop applications at all, as you advocate, and dig in on the quality of the Web applications... which are actually really, really good (if a bit slow right now).   But you didn't.  You just went nuts over Vista's built-in calendar app, which I believe is due for replacement by Windows Live Calendar, correct?  I wonder what percentage of iPhone users are even on Vista yet or use the built-in calendar.

Oh, and how is the Windows integration and sync experience with Windows Mobile?  Why not do a little comparison to that.  I'd expect that one the "supersite for windows".  Or not, I guess.

Next up... Apple's very reasonable and humble apology and 30 day free extension of the service.  This was a very nice thing to do, period.  For less than a week of role out struggles, we get a full month of free service.  And they honestly, and once again in plain language instead of Microsoft-patented marketing speak, explain their mistakes.

You've ignored that.  

You've also utterly ignored the mountain of criticism every shortcoming of the iPhone and MobileMe has received from your alleged "iCabal"... the mac-centric web.  Total dishonesty to serve your editorial voice on this site (and to pander to the Apple-bashers that troll these posts).

Now... about your own hyperbole...

"Apple has a history of over-promising and under-delivering (Leopard's secret features, anyone?)"

This statement is an outright LIE in the context of reality and Apple's competitors behavior.  Apple's behavior is in ACTUAL REALITY the EXACT OPPOSITE.  This criticism is utterly unwarranted and has absolutely no sense of context or proportionality.  None.  This statement is bull$it.

You're singling out a company that has a history of only demonstrating products when they are feature-locked and overwhelmingly shipping them as they've been demonstrated.  Are there occasionally (and rarely) a feature or two missing or delayed?  Sure.  Does it even remotely compare to Microsoft's breathtaking history of "over-promising and under-delivering"?  Not by a million miles. Hell, make it a trillion miles.  Leopard had new UI features that were secret, like QuickLook, which many of use now use hundreds of times a day.  That's just a fact.  Oh, and leopard today contains every feature Apple demonstrated... unlike Vista and many of Microsoft's products.

Do we really need to review Microsoft's history of failure here (WinFS and beyond?).  I don't think so.

This is biased crazy talk.

Paul, you've been taking other pundits to task for their snark in their blogs.  Come on.  What hypocrisy.  Absolutely, hypocrisy.  Criticize Apple for their issues.  But don't color the criticism with partisan garbage as you have in the post and countless others, and then cry foul when others do the same.  What a joke.

"In fact, Apple actually tosses up a nasty message when you try to use IE:"

Hmmm... given Microsoft's own efforts with IE8, Apple's dialog box appears to be a statement of pure fact.  Does that mean they couldn't have dealt with IE7's issues and hacked together a solution?  I don't know.  But how is stating reality "nasty".  Again, the biased and personal tone here is blatant.

As for Pogue's "rah rah"... he's dead on.  Non-Windows IE users have been getting these kinds of messages for years on sites written by hacks.  It IS gratifying to see the shoe on the other foot in a sense.

That gratification isn't rational and isn't in Apple's short-term business interest when so many iPhone users use IE... but this is the game.  Microsoft played this compatibility game and leveraged Windows to bully into the browser and server market.  Apple's using the iPhone and iPod to try and accelerate the move to open web standards and head off a shift to proprietary plugins.  This could also be viewed as strategy.  Apple's entitled to try and further break IE's grip on the proprietary wed just as anyone else is.  Firefox is free.  You even advocate it.

...or they're working on deadlines and didn't get to fully work out the coding kludge necessary to allow MobileMe's engine to run without errors in IE.

Either way, this user has seen enough "IE-only" pages in his lifetime to be very much in favor of ANYTHING that helps eliminate browser-specific coding and it's strategic lock-in.

"Seriously, where is the outrage?

The magic is impressive. That's really all I'm saying here."

Um, it's everywhere.  Listen to macbreak.  Read the actual mac web (without those selective goggles).  There was enough "outrage" for Apple to issue and apology and a free month of service.  As for "the magic"... what is this?  So, the desktop sync take 15 minutes.  Oh no!  That somehow invalidates the rest of the service?  That's how you're painting this.

Why the outrage?  That's my question.  Why are you SO bothered by this?  Why are you so thick in the head on this blog that you fail to grasp where the root of Microsoft criticism comes from?  Microsoft gets harsh criticism because they're the 90% guy. The proven monopoly abuser.  They're goliath.  Apple is the 4% guy.  The comeback kid.  The underdog.  They're david.  There's no iCabal, and no conspiracy here.  It's called human f^$&ing nature.

There is no conspiracy here, and there's like no ill will at apple either.  There's simply a product, a feature list, priorities and deadlines.  Extracting intent as you so often do is a game built on bias.

And given that you've defended Rob Enderle to me, the one-man WinCabal that spreads FUD about apple across the thousands of quotes he spews, I find everything about your conduct regarding Apple on this blog to be a hypocritical, incongruous mess compared to your excellent podcast with Leo.

But hey, the partisans here seem to be eating this stuff up... so your pandering sure seems to play to the crowd.  How nice.

I think we now have a new, canonical definition of FUD marketing and that is the Apple MobileMe IE7 dialog box.

F - Fear - If you use IE7 you are violating standards!

U - Uncertainty - We don't actually tell you what won't work.

D - Doubt - Will it work? Won't it work? Can you really be sure?

Great job Apple. You've brought Personal Computer marketing back to where IBM had mainframes in the 1970s.

And that's why 2008 Will be like 1984.

Another reason MobileMe rage might be low, even with the launch problems, is that all subscribers have had their subscriptions extended 30-days to make up for the 4-6 day outage, which is a pretty generous downtime multiplier. You can read the entire Apple apology email sent to subscribers yesterday here:

www.innerexception.com/.../apple-acknowledges-mobileme-migration.html

Paul should know this if he is reading his MobileMe mail, or just about any site with Mac news on it yesterday. I think it even reached the MSM.

@murdocdv

The problem Apple apologized for with the 30 day extension was the downtime.

The discussion here is on:

* The false advertising which Apple is now covering for with a change in spin by their sales force.

* The FUD marketing being used to push Safari

* The lame and deceptive "review" that glosses over all the problem areas.

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see Apple issue an apology on those. All they issued was a revision to their talking points for their sales staff.

^ kudos John, on target as usual.

And yet another silly venom article from Paul on the winsupersite on which 90% of the readers don't give a damn about Apple products (the 3% guys) and 90% of the other 10% will disagree with his point of view.

Besides pleasing your Win fanbois with such article, these same guys don't give a damn about mobile me as they won't ever consider buying it !! Remember, they are the one saying OSX is a toy OS, and iphone is for itards.

And yet another Apple bashing article on the long list of the latest Winsupersite blog which should be renamed:

notsomuchwinsitebutapplesuperbashsite

You might be pleasing your weedmonk, dipsh, jonNT and others but you are boring the non fanbois users who want to read quality article about Windows and want perhaps quality article about what is done on the other side and not childishly bashing the mainstream writers who think different than you.

This is maybe why your website audience is dwindling since the last few months where 90% of your article are venom-throwing article on Apple products and writers who dare thinking otherwise than you on Apple products.

www.alexa.com/.../winsupersite.com

Johnpapola,

You could have spared us all and yourself the effort of reading that mess of a reply by replacing it with a simple "I am a Mac apologist. I resent your article."

Remember, you are reading Paul's BLOG. You know, a place where he can post HIS opinion? Perhaps no one would have chastized Apple if they hadn't so famoulsy worn the "holier than thou" cap both in their Switcher Ads and their customary digs at Microsoft and Windows platform/users in Jobsnotes.

Leopard's "secret features".. oooh !! You bring up Vista's failed promise of WinFS and I raise you Leopard's promise of ZFS. Ever taken a peek inside the list of 300 new features on Apple's Leopard webpage? Quicklook like feature has been used in Windows since XP, albeit in a limited scope. Microsoft even expanded this functionality in Office 2007 and Vista - and this is certainly not Apple's patented feature. Of course, Jobs would have you believe it is. You don't believe Microsoft copied Apple in a week to create a Quicklook clone, do you?

I believe Paul's jab touched a nerve or two in you. Take a chill pill.

As a web designer, I've found that there's a 50/50 rule.  50% of any project is designing and refining your page layout, the other 50% is figuring out why it doesn't work in Explorer.  You'd be amazed how consistently this is the case.  IE7 is better than 6, but still far from standards-compliant.  Worse, it respects some of the IE6 quirks-mode hacks, but not others, making it doubly hard to get everything working on both.  But  it does provide me with a bit of job security, so I shouldn't complain.

I have high hopes for IE8 though.

BTW, Paul, do you realize that the top nav menu on your Blog section (this section) is seriously broken in IE6?  Items display vertically, as a series of rows, instead of horizontally as buttons.  I think you should get this fixed, unless you don't care about your IE6-using readers.

Paul wonders "where's the outrage." Certainly in his mind and in some of the comments here. I'm not so sure that the market has a similar verdict and that may be what he is so upset about.

Since I don't use Windows and don't have an iPhone I'm not in a position to comment on much, but just two small points and one general conclusion:

1. The "up to 15 minute" delay should be read with skepticism, as should any "up to" claim. The checking interval is 15 minutes. That means the AVERAGE delay---a much more meaningful number--- is 7.5 minutes.

2. You can change the sync time. Set it to 10 minutes and then the average delay is 5 minutes. You can't live your life with a 5 minute lag? I'd say change your life.

Since you can change the sync interval, there clearly comes a point where sync and push have no meaningful difference. Decide in your own mind where that is and adjust the setting accordingly.

dave, thanks for dragging me in!  For the record, I will stay and read sites that I'm interested in and get my Windows news from a variety of sources.  I don't simply take Paul's word for it.

John, got a question for you:

Why the outrage?  That's my question.  Why are you SO bothered by this?  Why are you so thick in the head on this blog that you fail to grasp where the root of Apple criticism comes from?

The last question is a little over the top, but the first two stand.  So I would say that Paul may be bothered by this because he works in the cloud and has a need for this, and also has experience with both the Mac and Windows, and Live Mesh, etc, etc.  That's why he is concerned.

@RaaJ

My favorite part of the "300 Reasons You Won't Actually Read To Convince You That You Shouldn't Feel Screwed That We're Charging You $129.00 For A Trivial Service Pack" was how many of them were tweaks to their bundled applets. Literally a couple of dozen were in the chat utility alone.

Some favorites included such major features as:  

"Warning before closing tabbed window" in Safari, Updated Language Guide and Descriptive Error Messages for AppleScript. (those were 2 separate "Features")

Compelling.

First off let me say that this launch has not been good, for one reason really.  Apple tried to launch a new .Mac service, with MobileMe, let millions of owners of the iTouch, and iPhone – 1 update to 2.0 firmware, launch the iPhone 3G and launch the applications store.  BAD MOVE.

Now this would have been ok probably if it were not fore their popularity, which Apple should have known considered.  So lessoned learned, don’t try to launch 5 things at one time that are very popular.  Apologize, extend the service 30 days for free and move on.

Ok now to poor Paul.

Seriously brother you need to change the name of this site, cuz it’s not about Windows anymore.  It’s like a personal vendetta against Apple, and it makes you look like a hack.  I mean after reading you for years, you need help.  I would never consider picking up a book you wrote because of your bizarre nature here on this blog.

Do you even think about all this stuff you write, read over it before you post, test stuff out before you state it like a fact?

For example, IE7 works.  I cant find one thing I cant do with IE7 on my Me.com account that I can do with Safari.  I just created a new photo gallery and posted a pic from IE7 on XP.  Its does seem a tad slower.  So why the rant about IE7.  Apple warns you, and what they said you can do with IE and ME, you can.

The calendar stuff and the higher price because you have to buy Outlook.  Ok so the most popular OS right now is XP by far, exactly which calendar app does XP come with out of the box?  NONE.  I know Vista does but honestly who uses it.  Outlook on Windows probably is 99% of Windows calendar users, if not more.   Last point on this calendar deal, I watched the video, and no where did they calendar sync with anything but Outlook.  Again Outlook and ME work as advertised.

Also on this subject of the MobileMe service, how many Windows users used .Mac prior to this launch?  I would say NONE.   No matter what Apple says about supporting PC’s, this is still really a Mac product with support for the most widely used Windows products (outlook).

Now the whole sync/push thing.  Well to save battery life per MS recommendation, if I set my WM phone for manual and 15min polling intervals AND I add a contact to my phone, will I see it in Outlook right away?  No I did not think so.

Apple blew this launch with poor planing, but honestly 99% of your rant wont mean jack to joe user, especially Windows users who wont use MobleMe, and their iPhones will work with Exchange EXACTLY like a Windows Mobile phone will only MUCH more elegantly.

"BTW, Paul, do you realize that the top nav menu on your Blog section (this section) is seriously broken in IE6?  Items display vertically, as a series of rows, instead of horizontally as buttons.  I think you should get this fixed, unless you don't care about your IE6-using readers."

Or put a warning up when you hit this site:)  Better yet rant about it with out really testing it:)

BrightrevCarl:  "Anyone know if MobileMe works with IE8, which *is* more standards-based?"

MobileMe refuses to try with the IE 8 that is publicly available (and I really shouldn't be using), when it is in IE 8 mode.  When it is in Emulate IE 7 mode, MobileMe treats it as it does IE 7--that is, not very well.

This one I can't hold against Apple.  But MobileMe should certainly be ready for the next round of IE 8, next month.  At least on an OK, use at your own risk basis.  And I'll be unhappy with Apple if it doesn't.

I don't know what happens with whatever version Paul has access to.

@RaaJ,

I love these kind of replies for the echo-chamber fans.  Sorry that rationality and even-handedness is so hard for you to read, buddy. Sorry that your fragile mind was polluted by an alternative point of view. And then, you end on the classic "chill out" as if any response, even a rational one, is just some kind of "proof" of the iPeople getting their panties in a twist.  Spare me.  If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  If you are going to bash the $hit out of Apple with disingenuous false "outrage" and snark, expect a response.  Blogging is about a community conversation.  I'm sorry you'd rather it be a windows fanboy circle jerk.

But, then, you've offered no real rebuttal to my "mess".

Yeah, it's Paul's blog.  He's more than entitled to partisan hack it up if he likes.  But that's not how he positions himself.  He's not claiming to be a street-fighter in the platform wars.  He claims to be even-handed... and he certainly rips into Microsoft.  But his criticism of Apple is of a different tone.  It's more personal.  More "outraged". And then, when he's on the podcast with Leo, the mac fan, this outrage vanishes. I'm sorry that you're tone deaf.  But these posts are a pandering mess.

As for "raising me ZFS"... thanks for proving your ignorance.  Apple NEVER mentioned or promised ZFS as a feature of Leopard.  Never.  So, does that mean you fold?  Microsoft dropped large chunks of the promised feature set in Vista.  Entire "pillars" of the OS.  This is well documented.  They have a long, tortured history of paper feature releases that don't make it into the shipping product.  

Apple as of Jobs return does not.  They are tight lipped until they have a working product.  You do remember how Job's dropped IBM and switched to Intel when his projection of hitting 3ghz didn't materialize, right?  That's how Apple operates.  They deliver what they say they will deliver.  And on the rare occasion that they can't or don't, they apologize and change.  Apple's list is tiny and inconsequential compared to Microsoft's.

As for trying to go down some "who came first" rathole with regards to QuickLook... spare me.  That's for hack partisan trolls.  Paul is claiming that Apple's "secret features" proclamation and subsequent reveal of the new Leopard desktop representing "over-promising and under-delivering".  That's quite demonstrably a lie.  I'm making no claim regarding quicklook other than the indisputable fact that it was one of the secret features of leopard that many users now can't live without.  

And I'm sorry that you derive so much personal value from your PC that Apple's ad campaign offends you.  It just so happens that the campaign is highly memorable and effective.  So effective that Microsoft has acknowledged it's effect and is preparing an "answer".  I just love how the users of the 90% platform just LOVE to take umbrage at everything Apple with it's 4% does while calling Apple users lemmings and then claiming that they're irrelevant.  What a paradoxical, hypocritical existence.  

@mikegalos@msn.com

Did you read the apology email? Part of the apology was for describing the PC to cloud as "push" when it was automatic sync which happens within 15 minutes. That wasn't the whole basis for the "Exchange for the rest of us" claim, but it was a large part and clearly, again from the apology email, their goal is to get Mac and PC to be push and not automatic sync. Until it is, they won't call it "push", which only seems logical. Does this mean the lack of push on all sides of the cloud promised before launch isn't disappointing, no. But it would only be false advertising if after the product launch they continued to claim the Mac/PC to cloud sync was push, which it isn't, but they clearly aren't doing that. It's poorly managed expectations, but again most users won't care about automatic sync vs. push.

As for FUD around MobileMe and IE 7, read my first comment on a possible technical reason. I just did a quick test myself of IE 7 vs. FF 3 on MobileMe, IE is sloooooow, FF 3 isn't. Nothing Apple is going to be able to do about IE JavaScript performance. Apple chose a JavaScript heavy framework, and JavaScript performance is not going get better for IE users until at least IE 8. Just because this is true, doesn't mean its FUD for Apple to warn people of the fact. It is also a well documented fact that IE 7 is not as Web standards compliant by the few objective measures we have than Firefox or Safari. If the framework Apple used was written to the standards, then entirely possible that IE 7 doesn't like something, and they haven't worked around it yet. That is not an apology, just software development reality. They may never work around the IE 7 issues with MobileMe, only time will tell. Again, none of this is an apology, I would not have made the choices Apple has in implementing the Web part of MobileMe to exclude IE 7, but it's their product.

As for Pogue's review, Paul's whole point was to bash the automatic sync, and complain about not having Windows Calendar as a sync point because that's free and Outlook isn't. The fact that you need Outlook on the PC for Calendar sync right now is not hidden by Apple. You can surely complain about it, but supporting Outlook instead of Windows Calendar is an easy pragmatic decision to limit scope. Windows didn't have a built-in calendar until Vista, and Vista is not the majority Windows version right now, XP is. The majority of Windows users have Office, so its the smarter move to support Outlook.

@johnbaxter  please enlighten me on what does not work with MobileMe and IE7, beyond the warning you get.

Please.

@murdocdv

Apple's change in marketing and mail to their sales staff is fairly compelling admission of false claims.

As for "technical reasons" for the IE7 issues, they don't list any. They just do a FUD description of vague bad things that can happen with vague "Web 2.0" sites. Of course, as we've already discussed, the key AJAX technologies (DHTML and XmlHttpRequest) were invented by Microsoft and debuted in IE before Safari was even written (in IE 4 and IE 5.x respectively) and are now "Standards". That Apple blew their web coding is Apple's fault. Period.

@Mike wow so MS invented Ajax technologies with IE4 and IE5.  That is fantastic, I will tuck that away for the next trivia night at my church.  

Now jump 5 years up here with us, how well does their support of Java and Ajax work in IE7???  Especially compared to other browsers?  

Somehow I think the answer to that question will be a tad more important to this subject.

I tried is with IE on XP and I get this....

www.me.com/.../en

wow that just like this when using FF3....

winqual.microsoft.com/.../BrowserNotSupported.html

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE??????????

@WebGuy

Thanks for putting some real-world context on what support IE and it's (currently) broken standards support means.  It makes the honesty of Apple's message on their site that much more obvious (even though they are big enough to deal with the kludge of support IE).

@dipsht,

Yes, paul works in the cloud.  And so does mobileme.  The cloud is all push.  Use me.com and it's all push, no waiting.  He has some very specific gripes, which I agreed with.  But his overall ludicrous tone and broad condemnation is what takes this from measured criticism to partisan hack territory.  And it's hypocritical.  He's all about the "outrage" lately and the "icabal" yet this site reads like a partisan hack-o-rama.  How else can you explain his failure to mention Apple's very reasonable 30 service extension.  I mean, come on.  And yet he calls Pogue out on selectivity.  As a .mac subscriber, he got the same email the rest of us did.  But that humble apology doesn't fit into the editorial position he's taking in this blog... so he ignores it.  Like I said, this is just bull$hit.

@mikegalos,

sorry to see that you are sounding a partisan hack.  Calling Leopard a service pack is straight out of the ignore-the-facts Apple-basher playbook.  Man, you guys all sound alike.  Just like the alleged "iCabal".  

@Snakedoctor:

Right on.  Thanks for pointing out that, for all the "outrage", IE7 seems to work well enough.  Oh yeah... and the fact that XP comes with no calendar app at all is a great point.  Still, Apple should support the Vista Calendar.  Why not?  I bet they will.... unless... shhhh.... it's a conspiracy against Vista Calendar.  Please.  And agreed on the user numbers.  Apple may have data showing that Vista calendar is being ignored by smartphone users (who as a group probably own Outlook).  But then, that kind of analysis would require discussing "context".  Something that Paul's outrage seems to constantly ignore.

Pingback from  Thurrott&#8217;ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience? | The iPhone Blog

As a Mac user, here is my take:

1) Bookmark syncing should support Firefox - you are right to criticize that.

2) MobileMe not supporting true push was disappointing. There are other aspects that need work, like it and the iphone should support subscribed calenders. Hopefully they will address these areas soon, until they are people are right to fault them for it.

3) Apple should try to get MobileMe working on IE but maybe there are real reasons why they can't or at least could not for launch.  Still it should ideally be supported - though as a Mac user we get the same treatment from other companies a lot.

4) Pogue likes Macs.  So does Mossberg.  They try to be objective but they are just not.  Can you really blame them? How much of our lives are we supposed to spend on Windows? If you don't like an operating system, if you think it is not as good, how much time does it deserve even if a lot of people use it? I think their coverage of Windows is adequate, but then I really don't care that much. Sorry.

In terms of MobileMe, its not perfect at all.  Better push is clearly needed and as I said above better support for subscribed calenders.  Also the web front-end is not fast enough.

All that having been said, and here I am asking a real question, is there a way for an independent user, one without Exchange to do push between a PC and a handset?

Because at least on Mac there is no way other than MobileMe.  We don't have that on Palm or BB, not at least for someone outside of a company with an IT department.

I think the fact that Apple in MobileMe is offering a service that regular people have never had before give them some shielding from getting skewered as another company might.  People use the iPhone and are amazed by it. MobileMe syncing is also an amazing feature for people who have never had any kind of push before.  And there is the clear potential that issues with it will be addressed.  But taken as a whole, the iPhone and MobileMe represent a real step forward in functionality and ease of use available the average consumer.

Yes Apple should support Vista Calendar and it probably will, with out a doubt.  In fact Vista is more like Leopard in that you have a good email, address book and calendar app that comes with the OS.  Which is good enough for 98% of home users.

However Outlook is still by huge margin the #1 calendar product used on Windows so I would assume they went for the biggest target.

Here is a good article browsers, IE is a DOG.  Bigger bars = more time = bad.

www.linux.com/.../139212

@johnpapola

Calling Leopard a Service Pack is at worst equally as false as saying it has 300 new features.

@snakedoctor1

The point is that IE has those AJAX features, has had them longer than anybody else and the standard was based on IE. So, yes, they work fine.

Even here, the only complaint is that the LiveScript/ECMAScript/JavaScript implementation in IE 7 is slower than in FF3 or Safari.

Since everybody else's code seems to work at a reasonable speed on IE, perhaps the reasonable assumption is that the problem lies in Apple's bloated scripting code...

@Mike,

Um...

You do realize that you can be right to criticize the "300 new features" list as silly and wrong about leopard being a service pack at the same time, right?   Because that's what you are.  300 Features was dumb and hyperbolic marketing (though not technically false).  Leopard was also a significant OS release that provided sweeping improvements, fundamental new APIs, major new functionality and UI changes.

Only partisan hacks play things black and white and construct false dichotomies instead of rational arguments.

Similarly. Microsoft can both be the originator of many of the AJAX base technologies, IE7 can support many AJAX features and yet IE7 can be a browser with poor support for modern web standards that Firefox, Safari and Opera now support more fully.  Given that IE8 entire push is to make it "more standards compliant"... that inherently means that IE7 lacks in that area.  Why are you trying to dispute that?  More hackery?

@johnpapola

Saying "poor support for modern web standards" is hyperbolic as well. The "Modern web standards" that define "Web 2.0" are the two that make up AJAX and those are supported fully in IE and have been for years.

So, a few questions to cut the hyperbole and try to see what you actually are talking about...

Which standards are "modern"? Which ones effect MobileMe? Why do everyone else's "modern web 2.0 applications" work fine despite this supposed insurmountable failing? If "FF, Safari and Opera" all support these "Modern Web Standards" how come they render pages differently? Why don't those rendering "quirks" matter to Apple?

@johnpapola

The difference between my saying "Leopard is a Service Pack" and Apple saying "Leopard has 300 New Features!" is that I'm not asking you to spend $129 based on my statement.

@mike,

First, I assume you're backing away from the silly Leopard jabs and going to honest debate.  Much appreciated.

I honestly have no clue about what constitutes standards compliance and what matter and whatever.  I'm a director, not a web guy.  I've also made it clear that I think Apple should do what it takes to make me.com work in IE7.  I also, however, can appreciate their effort to fight IE's dominance and proprietary standards in general.

Listen, I think it's a fair statement for someone like myself to make, even in technical ignorance, that IE7 is not as standards compliant as the competition.  Microsoft's own moves with IE8 prove that fact.  Their change of course regarding the default engine in IE8 also further confirm it.  Of course few sites are going to forgo IE7 support. It'd be suicide for your business to buck the trend.  But this is Apple.  They're big and have a vested interest in moving people off of IE.  They can afford to take the risk with me.com and see if it makes a difference.  Microsoft has spent it's existence spread FUD about competitors as a core strategy.  Apple, perhaps, is doing the same in the name of an open web that won't leave the mac in the cold.

If you want to get into the nitty gritty of Apple's message, it's probably a mix of technical and strategic issues at work.  They're clearly pushing an open-standards approach to Rich Internet Applications because they see the threat of a company like Microsoft or Adobe dominating the future of computing with proprietary plugins like Silerlight and Flash.

If this strategy bothers enough of their customers, they'll fix it, just as they've licensed exchange from Microsoft and actually gone onstage touting Exchange as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Apple is not nearly as ideological a company as people like Paul (and probably yourself) make them out to be.  They're just the most disciplined tech company on earth regarding their messaging.  

"Which ones effect MobileMe? Why do everyone else's "modern web 2.0 applications" work fine despite this supposed insurmountable failing? If "FF, Safari and Opera" all support these "Modern Web Standards" how come they render pages differently? Why don't those rendering "quirks" matter to Apple?"

IE7 works with me.com, its just slower.

@johnpapola

The problem isn't that you don't know hich "standards" are "modern" because there is no definition of what that means. This is purely Apple using FUD to push sales.

Is IE7 100% standards compliant? Nope. Neither is Firefox or Safari or Opera.

Is IE8 more standards compliant than IE7? You bet.

Is FF3 more standards compliat than FF2? You bet.

Is IE7 less standards compliant than Safari? It depends on which standards you care about counting as "modern standards" and which you say are "too new to expect to be implemented" and it also depends on who is reading the spec. I know of several spec items that are implemented differently in "standards compliant" browser in totally opposite ways because the spec is vague and the two teams read it differently.

As others have posted, IE7 works fine with MobileMe but the site runs slowly since it is a VERY slow page with a lot of script on it. That's not an standards compliance issue. For Apple to say it is means they're flat out lying to cover their slow code by hiding behind meaningless finger pointing.

Oh, and in case you do think that the scripting is a standards issue, remember that the ECMA 262 Scripting standard was submitted by Microsoft and Microsoft's JScript implementation was the basis for the standard.

While I haven't yet played with the iPhone and MobileMe (will buy the first and try the second shortly after Apple fixes their inevitable first round feckups), but I am interested in knowing what thingamazings Me.com is doing that are more sophisiticated than what Google Gears or Google Documents does - something that seems more feature-rich and complicated than what Me.com says it does.

Someone please shed some light.

@JohnPapola,

Your "partisan hack" tirade is getting, well, tiresome. You admit yourself that you have no idea what "modern web standards" IE7 is breaking, yet you continue to parrot Apple's catch phrases that 'IE7 has known incompatibilities with modern web standards."

Hey, if Apple says it invented Time itself, that must be true. Right?

To quote your own words "iPeople getting their panties in a twist."

Hahaha.. that perfectly describes what is happening here.

I just hope Apple continue to build this Mobile me mess until it fits the description it was announced with such trademark style. I mean, i've gone and signed up now, the first day, expecting it to work beautifully from day one. Silly me.

Yes they've apologized, but hang on: did they REALLY apologize? I didn't see much apology. I just saw words about things being rocky, and a thirty day extension. Sounded pretty firm to me rather than a groveling apology (Similar tone to the one Steve Jobs wrote when the iPhone reduced in price).

Yes, i can wait 15 minutes but I would prefer it to be as good as it was advertised and sold to me like. (And yes, things were "subject to change" in the usual legalese). BUt the bowser stuff REALLY infuriates me. Again, i hope this is sorted out properly.

I have to hopes 1) Apple sort it all out 2) Google come out with free versions (or even paid) of their calendar, contacts being pushed, along with email. (All the initial partnership with Yahoo and Google seems to have been ditched now, so why wouldnt they?!)

John, I would suggest calming down.  Your postings are starting to sound very partisan and hackish, just as much as you so deride others doing.  And needing to use expletives and gross stereotypes, and not answering questions, you are spiraling down in to that territory that you so hate, turning in to the Apple Waethorn.  Flying off the handle and caring so much about this blog.  John, I respect you, I really do, but you need to calm down and take that "chill pill".  I know you don't like hearing these things, but take a step back.  Your starting to sound just as crazy as you accuse Paul of being.  Now who's the crazier one?

In reality, I suggest you maybe start posting to your own blog again and start monetizing it.  At least you can make some money while voicing your opinion, which you will just as easily be able to do, just like Paul does.  Just my 2 mouse buttons if you will. ;)

@mikegalos@msn.com

Does MobileMe use a lot of JavaScript? Absolutely. Does it perform acceptably, even well, in Firefox or Safari. It does for me, Mac or Windows. Internet Explorer 7 does not execute JavaScript as fast as either FF or Safari, and I believe its performance running MobilelMe borders on unacceptable. Apple clearly says IE is going to perform slowly in their warning, its not an obscure "technical reasons". The only ones responsible for choosing to use that much JavaScript is Apple. But it is also not fair to call it a VERY slow page just because IE, regardless of whether Microsoft created XmlHttpRequest and standardized Javascript, can't run as fast as other browsers. That IE 7 is a slower javascript interpreter than FF 3 or Safari 3 is a fact.

As for what web standards were important to Apple using the SproutCore framework that they felt compelled to show the warning, unless you are building SproutCore-based Web apps or have inside information, we aren't going to know. But a big clue might be the list of changes being made to IE 8 to be more HTML and DOM standards compliant:

blogs.msdn.com/.../html-and-dom-standards-compliance-in-ie8-beta-1.aspx

Yes, that is the IEBlog. Again, we can't know at this point what, if anything for real, prevented Apple from fully supporting IE 7. I don't think anyone is defending the decision to not fully support IE 7 at launch, again they should if they want to attract the most customers. But you refusing to acknowledge that there even could be reasons, and that IE 7 already does all it does well enough for most, is dishonest. If IE 7 was good enough, IE 8 wouldn't be coming. And that is not a Microsoft slam, it's the state of software.

BTW, just as a comparison, the latest version of Windows Live Hotmail has been out for a couple years now right? In Safari 3, you still see the old interface. No warning on logon, and only in options do you see this:

"This is the classic version of Windows Live Hotmail

This version works better with your browser. The full version of Windows Live Hotmail runs on Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher (make sure you check the system requirements before you install it). The full version also works on Firefox 2.0."

If Apple is indeed playing "browser hardball", then you could draw the conclusion they aren't the only one. I would suggest instead that Microsoft had to prioritize development efforts, just like Apple has done at MobileMe launch, and they have prioritized correctly. Remember, the only subscribers to MobileMe were Safari and Firefox users on the Mac until the end of last week, I know what I would be making sure works right first if I were building MobileMe's Web apps.

Pingback from  iphonesupermall.com ?? Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

@johnpapola @daveinla

I love the posts from you guys that are usually longer than Paul's post.  I'm a mac user but am dumbfounded how you two look over the fact that Apple doesn't answer to the same standards as Windows.  Yeah, Apple is the "David," the little guy, the comeback kid.  Woopdee doo.  They promise and promise, and in the end, the user's are usually shortchanged.  As "few" users as Apple has compared to Microsoft, they should have much better deployments (keep in mind the same thing happened with the 3G activation) and keep the features they promise.  And doesn't support IE7???  WHAT?  Holy crap, that's a ball-sy move.  

If you really hate Paul and his articles that much, go read something else.  I like having a mac but if I'm associated with the iCabal (and it really exists) you might be finding an iMac on eBay.

@mordocdv

Of course there are some key differences between Microsoft's support of Safari for Windows and Apple's support of IE7

Microsoft provides a functioning solution for Safari where Apple does not offer IE for MobileMe

Microsoft is only partially supporting a browser with a miniscule market share (1% or less), Apple is vocally not supporting the top browser in the world

Microsoft doesn't blame anyone else for their not giving full support for Safari. Apple tries to blame Microsoft for their choices.

Microsoft doesn't tell users to switch browsers. Apple puts download links to their browser and the partially supported Firefox.

Aside from that, maybe there's a point. But not much left.

@jp - "He claims to be even-handed"

Again...I ask...when has Paul claimed to be "even-handed" or unbiased. I think that I have asked that about 5 times this week and nobody has been able to point me to a place where Paul has claimed this. Please do so...

--tayme

Many people have posted that they have tested me.com with IE7 and have found NOTHING that does not work. If that is the case, then this is a very direct case of FUD...and FUD that is being spread by Apple...not just the fans.

--tayme

@tayme

Even if it had compatibility issues with MobileMe, Apple's message is still FUD by pretending it's a vague IE problem that makes it incompatible with Web 2.0 apps besides MobileMe.

This is, either way, the most blatant FUD marketing I've seen in years. If MobileMe really DOES work with IE7 then it's even worse but either way, it's pathetic.

@mikegalos - Actually, I consider the I'm a Mac/I'm a PC television spots to be FUD as well. The thing is, I have 2 Macs in my house, along with several other computers running several other OS's. I like Apple products...but do not consider them to be as "customer friendly" as those that Paul has satirically coined the iCabal.

@jp - I agree with dipsh!t Admin...Please do not continue down the road to Waethorness. I used to respect him...and I still do you - for now.

--tayme

@tayme

I wasn't saying this was the first or only case of FUD since the IBM mainframe days just the most blatant one.

On a non-FUD but amazingly deceptive example, during the OS Wars, IBM did a checklist ad that had features and check mark columns for OS/2 and Windows 95. They'd put big groups of items in one row. In one case, they had something like seven utilities in the list. Six were in both platforms (like notepad, mail client, web browser) and one was an obscure OS/2 specific one. They had a check mark in the OS/2 column and none in Windows implying that Windows didn't have these uitlities when it had all but one. Their excuse was that they said "a, b, c, d, e, f AND g" and since Windows didn't have "g" they were right in implying it didn't have any of them because AND was clearly understood to mean all or nothing.

And despite all the annoyances, the press don't give them any heat AND the iSlaves still go out and buy this sh*t! Unbelievable!

I think the biggest problem with the IE7 fiasco, is not does it or does it not support it.  That can either be a stupid move, or whatever, really doesn't matter.  If they don't want to support it, that's fine.  I wasn't in their target audience anyway, so I really don't care.  What does roil me and I'm guessing many others is the language that is used by Apple.  Some on here talk about how Paul and other commenters are childish and the like.  However, Apple is known to be quite childish, and the language of the text was certainly worded in a way to spread FUD.  However, unlike some, I don't feel offended by it.  There are many other solutions out there.

For what it's worth though, going to me.com now, they have toned down their language and made the page the way that it should have been, without the snark (snarkiness being another thing that some one here complain about Paul's and others usage, but totally ignore it and embrace it when Apple is snarky).

It now says:

"We recommend the following browsers.To make use of rich web applications in MobileMe, we recommend one of the following supported browsers:Safari 3 or later (Mac / PC) Firefox 2 or later (Mac / PC) Update your browser now to access your email, calendar, contacts, and more at me.com"

Much better, the way it should be, even with a "don't show this again" check box.  And I would imagine that Opera users would get the same window.  As far as I'm concerned, this particular problem is solved.

What's shocking to me is the overreaction it has caused with you all. I look at it and think that it is pretty benign, while fanboys call it FUD. Pa-lese. If you hate Apple fine, but pick a legit gripe for crying out loud. More and worse FUD has been spewed by all of you and Steve Jobs didn't sue you [yet anyway]. Protest the war or something important for gosh sakes.

Respectfully, getta life gang,

Doc

dip,

Sure thing.  Calming down...

To be honest, this blog is on it's way to losing me as a reader.  A quick look at the blog, and you really get the sense that Paul has jumped the shark.  It's all apple bashing and Vista praise, which makes it just-another-zealot-blog.  That's a depressing thing, and I'm not sure what's prompted Paul's moves.  Oh well.  At least his podcast is really good.

I don't think I can stomach another post about marketshare that involves such obviously ludicrous "analysis" or another shocked "where's the outrage" umbrage fest.  bah.  What a shame.

@johnpapola

Horrors. A Windows blog praises the best Windows client OS ever released. Will this madness ever cease?

Here's a final marketshare post before you leave:

More copies of Windows Vista are sold every 40 days than all the working Macintosh computers in the entire world.

Bye.

@mikegalos,

I'd really love to know what your point is.  Are you saying "macs suck"?  Are you saying that I suck for preferring macs?  Are you making the tired, hackneyed, intellectually bankrupt argument that Microsoft marketshare is "proof" that it's better.  Apple's stock performance and revenue growth sure doesn't suck.  The iPhone is clearly superior in version 2.0 to Windows Mobile at version 6.1 and Paul would and does agree.

So what are you trying to prove?  I may be long-winded, and I may get passionate about the discussion, but I stay on the topic and don't fly off into this kind of broad-strokes condemnation of any platform.  Windows Vista is a fine OS.  I think Leopard is better.  It's certainly better for the work I do in broadcast media.

I think you just have some kind of mac-bashing ax to grind.  That's weird and sad.

@johnpapola

My point was your particularly whiny post about how awful it is that Paul praises Vista was ludicrous.

As was your threat to leave if there was another market share discussion. Guess that was an empty bluff.

Pingback from  The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it&#8217;s not &#8216;Exchange for the rest of us&#8217; anymore &laquo; Noocyte&#8217;s Weblog

I think that it boils down to a few simple points...

- Vista is a good OS...a vast improvment over previous iterations of Windows. This is to be expected.

- Leopard is a good OS...a vast improvment over previous iterations of OS X. This is to be expected.

-Microsoft is a successful company that has had many mis-steps along the way - illegal monopoly, Windows ME, X Box 360 reliability, etc.

- Apple is a successful company that has had many mis-steps along the way - poor management in the 90s, System 9, 3G iPhone and mobileMe release.

You see, they are not so different, even though they are completely different. Much like us humans that roam this planet....

--tayme

Well said tayme. Agree on all points. Now lets have some info and less bashing. Believe it or not, I don't really go to any other site except macsurfer, which really has mostly 'Apple too friendly links'. I like to get the info here as it is usually well written and easy to understand, but this is becoming superapplebash.com

Woops, I always go to the blog to pick your brains, so thanks again. I just don't get a lot of response from forums asyou first youo to find the right one, and pray for a smart response. So remember, the community makes the blog work.

Doc

@Tayme,

good post.  unfortunately, the voices of zealotry are beginning to overrun this comments sections.  It makes sense, given Paul's posturing and pandering to the Apple-basher crowd.  Oh well.  Whatever it take to drive traffic, I guess.

Just look at the "iTunes is unreliable" post.  The next line is that it's actually very reliable on his laptop, just not on his tower.  How is that anything other than trolling for links and traffic.  If an app is stable on one system and unstable on another... could it be the machine and not the app?  Maybe one that claims to be a truth-teller should check that out before making proclamations.  Or throw up another crowd-please headline for the hacks.

meh.  I mean, just look at this new entrant, mr. Galos.  Hackin it up in every apple-related article.  The echo-chamber is coming to this site very fast.  I hope Paul enjoys it.

@mikegalos@msn.com

I hope you accidentally mistyped my handle, otherwise that was just childish.

"Microsoft provides a functioning solution for Safari where Apple does not offer IE for MobileMe"

True Microsoft offers the "classic" version of Hotmail, while Apple with IE 7 says there are issues, but lets you try it anyway. You can't try the full version of Hotmail in Safari. I don't know what you would want Apple to do to "offer" IE.

"Microsoft is only partially supporting a browser with a miniscule market share (1% or less), Apple is vocally not supporting the top browser in the world"

Safari has 1% or less of all browsing traffic? What's your source? How many times do I have to say I disagree with Apple not fully supporting IE 7? It's a mistake, but there are possible explanations. I can't see how "vocally not supporting" is telling you if you want the best experience use these other two choices, and then let's you try it anyway. It does not take much parsing of the Hotmail statement to read classic as "old and busted" and full as "new hotness" if you want to, but I hadn't ever considered that until re-reading it nine times to try and understand your points.

My point is really pretty simple. As I have said, it is fairly obvious the MobeleMe browser support decision making goes something like this:

What OS are all existing subscribers to MobileMe using? Mac OS X.

What are the top browsers used Mac OS X? Firefox and Safari.

What browsers should we make sure work with all the MobileMe Web applications at launch? Firefox and Safari.

Do both those browsers also work on Windows? Yes. Check-off cross-platform. What about Firefox bookmarks sync? Next version.

What about IE? Wow, IE7 Javascript performance stinks compared to FF 3 or Safari 3. Is that it? No, there are HTML/DOM/JS stuff that works the same in FF and Safari, but works different in IE 7. What should we do? Launch date isn't moving, ship without complete IE 7 support, let people know the situation, and fix it when/if we get time, it's costing us subscribers, or check if IE 8 is the answer.

"Microsoft doesn't tell users to switch browsers. Apple puts download links to their browser and the partially supported Firefox."

Untrue. Microsoft tells you to download IE, and provides a link, for the full Hotmail experience, no link to Firefox though. But that is beside my point.

The point of the Hotmail example was to show, least anyone forget, that *if* Apple is playing browser hardball, they certainly haven't been the only ones, and they may not even be playing hardball, like I don't believe Microsoft was/is with Hotmail. If, a huge if, there are any Windows users outraged at MobileMe's incomplete IE 7 support, this should be a reminder that incomplete browser support happens in all kinds of web applications, chill out or don't use MobileMe. This is hardly the first and it won't be the last time that a new Web application at launch has had to constrain the browser support matrix.

Possibly even better than filing a bug with Apple, here is the MobileMe Customer Service and Technical Support form:

www.apple.com/.../contact.html

I have sent them a request to fully support IE 7, I suggest any other MobileMe subscribers that want full IE 7 support voice their concern as well.

@murdocdv

(Sorry about theprevious typo, the subconscious is an odd thing)

Note that the primary point of changing .mac to .me was making it cross platform.

Note that IE is by far the dominent browser on the target platform

Note that Windows is the dominent platform for iPhone users

Note that Safari on the target platform (Windows) is less than 1% by the last numbers I saw.

Note that Apple pulled the FUD dialog for one more reasonably worded once they started to get bad press about it.

Of course, the FUD campaign is yet another way Apple shows that they're neither ready for the mainstream nor much concerned with competing on the facts.

Kind of like:

the "Buy a Mac because Windows users have cooties" series of TV ads

the "Safari really is an update to iTunes" deceptive opt-out download

the "MobileMe is an update to QuickTime" control panel debacle

the "Microsoft ActiveStink" reference in the last keynote

representing Windows computers in their OS as an old monitor with a blue screen of death.

@murdocdv

Would you be happier if Microsoft put up the followig dialog?

Safari for Windows is not fully supported

Safari for Windows has a history of known security flaws which affect system security with Web 2.0 applications such as Hotmail.

You can use Safari for Windows, but you will not have access to all Hotmail features and will risk security incursions.

For the best Hotmail experience, please use Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 3.

(Get Firefox) (Get Internet Explorer)        (Continue)

@mikegalos@msn.com

"Of course, the FUD campaign is yet another way Apple shows that they're neither ready for the mainstream nor much concerned with competing on the facts."

Are you serious? That is comical if you actually believe that. Companies are constantly sowing FUD against each other, that is part of competition. Perhaps you need a history lesson. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/.../Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt

"Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the 80's used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ding IBM themselves during the OS2 vs Win3.1 years."

As for your rewriting of the hotmail browser disclaimer, what was wrong with the original? There is one improvement in yours though, a download link to Firefox.

For those that care...Apple has not relpaced the IE7 splash with a kinder, gentler version. I still get the FUD splash on my Vista machine. On my XP/IE6 box, I get the toned down version.

--tayme

@murdocdv

There you go again making accusations against Microsoft without providing anything to back up your accusations.

I just gave concrete examples of Apple's childish and FUD behavior and your response is effectively, "It's OK that Apple does it because they all do it and even if I can't actually show an example you should take my word for it."

No deal.

Either show the FUD you're talking about or apologize.

(Oh, and the Wikipedia page that you linked to showed as an example a Microsoft memo saying not to use FUD marketing and a quote from an essay on open source that didn't cite any either but did the same "Hey, they must do it" assumption.)

@tayme

That's sad that Apple continues to act like a spoiled 4th grader.

Do you know which dialog they user for Opera, Safari 2 or Firefox 2? (3 other browsers not supported?)

@Mike,

Yep, that's it.  Apple's acting like a 4th grader by using the exact same strategy that Microsoft has used forever.  The same strategy of exclusion that the currently use with OWA, probably one of the biggest web apps in use in business.  Or hotmail.  The same strategy that has underpinned they're push for developers to employ IE-only tech to limit browser competition.  Only, unlike these IE-only strategy plays, Apple allows me.com to render in IE7.

It's simply amazing to me the way Microsoft Apologists/Apple bashers like yourself see the world.  Microsoft uses every trick in the book to achieve dominance.  You people celebrate that dominance as proof that your platform is superior.  Then you scorn Apple for using comparable tactics to advance their own agenda (one that happens to be more open-standards and cross-platform).  

You lambast itunes/ipod lock-in, yet say nothing of the fact that Windows Media DRM isn't on the Mac, despite the Mac's very sizable consumer share (Mac users are estimated to be 15 to 20% of the US consumer installed base... numbers that Paul has said he agrees with).  

So choice is great, so long as it's YOUR choice.

And what's the funniest thing of all?  None of you partisan trolls would ever consider Apple's products or services.  You don't use the stuff, or want to use it, and yet your feign outrage and are SO opinionated about it.  Get a life.  I'm passionate about my tools and my platform.  I could care less what you people use, or what Microsoft does... so long as it doesn't interfere with me.  

Microsoft pushing "silverlight" on the web may interfere with mac users some day.  The day that silverlight becomes dominant and all of the sudden the Windows version runs better than the Linux and Mac versions.  There's every reason to believe that "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" is alive and well deep inside the strategic core of Microsoft.  It's just a matter of them gaining a dominant position with something besides Windows and Office for that strategy to re-emerge.  So long as they're the internet underdog, "openness and interoperability" will be the buzzwords in Redmond.

I hope I'm wrong.  I hope Microsoft has changed.  I hope they have the confidence in their good products to retire the Windows "moat" strategy.  But it's what made them who they are... and old habits die hard.  

Mike, you're an Apple-basher.  And this faux outrage over Apple's "FUD" is silly.

@johnpapola

You're taking after murdocdv so much I'll just say the same thing.

There you go again making accusations against Microsoft without providing anything to back up your accusations.

@mikegalos@msn.com

You are asking me to apologize to Microsoft for what? Pointing out the disclaimer they have had in Windows Live Hotmail for over a year. Stating they have used FUD throughout their existence. That made my week, funniest damn thing I have read.

I certainly didn't say take my word for it, I just believe everyone knows how to use Google. Here are some recent examples:

Ballmer says the first gen iPhone "$500, fully subsidized, with a plan, it is the most expensive phone in the world". Completely untrue, as plenty have been correct to point out, even though the iPhone 3G acquisition price is cheap now, closer to other smartphones, the TCO over the contract price makes it more expensive, along the same lines as other smartphone TOC was last year when iPhone 1 launched with cheaper TCO.

www.engadget.com/.../steve-ballmer-laughs-off-the-iphone-deems-it-most-expensive-i

Ballmer claims that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. No lawsuits have been filed, the claimed infringed patents are unspecified.

blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/.../108806.asp

Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg equates buying a Wii with a Karaoke Machine. Also says  a Wii is for "nine year old gamers" and it's a "novelty", and eventually Wii gamers need to "graduate" to Xbox 360.

www.gamasutra.com/.../news_index.php

Mike, if you have gotten it in your head that I am a Microsoft basher, your dead wrong. If this is purely about you Apple bashing, you are seriously misguided. If you care at all about technology, as I do, you don't want either Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, or CompanyX to dominate any market. As a consumer, you want them competing against each other to produce the best products. Just because I use a mix of Microsoft, Google, Etc. and Apple products, and nothing to hide more Apple products lately, doesn't mean that can't or won't change down the line. All empires fall. I believe the next inflection is going to be the Cloud OS to all your devices. If this is Live Mesh, MobileMe (rocky start excepted), the Googleplex, or again an unknown, I won't care what company as long as the service meets my needs.

murdocdv,

You still haven't shown the supposed equivalent.

You accused Microsoft of a long time history of FUD and din't show any.

You presented a few individuals at Microsoft as the equivalent of official Apple marketing campaigns.

So, again, show your work...

Oh, and before you includ Balmer's statements, show how they're not accurate and were designed to spread Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt.

They seem pretty fact based to me. Unlike the Apple FUD based on vague claims which is a necessary part of FUD.

Mike, if you don't think an unsubstantiated claim of 235 patent violations by Linux is FUD, you're really on another planet.

That is the DEFINITION of FUD.  REAL FUD.  Not this Apple warning, which is a strategic statement of fact.

They were putting out this statement to businesses in order to scare them away from linux... or at least into buying their licensing arrangement with Novell.

FEAR:

Linux violates 235 of our patents.  Translation:  If you use linux, your business could be liable for millions in license fees that you haven't anticipated.  Be afraid of Linux!

UNCERTAINTY:

We won't actually say which 235 patents it violates.  We won't actually provide any information about this statement.  Translation:  Our patent cloud hangs over all things Linux.  Avoid it all if you want to be safe.

DOUBT:

We aren't filing any suits now (probably because we're not convinced we could win)... but you've been warned.  And now, hopefully, every purchasing decision involving Linux will be tainted by unsubstantiated doubts about the future liability.

How can you possibly deny this?  

I'll dig up a bunch when I have the time.  This stuff is all so part of the open history of Microsoft, you need only digg through the discovery in US vs. Microsoft.  Or read "Broken Windows". Or have been alive and able to understand speech and text for the past 20 years.

@jp - Yes, MS was convicted of illegally using their monopoly to harm competitors...but they have paid for that. In fact, they are starting to get a little respect from the US DOJ now...and it is the EU that is after them...in my opinion, in a money seeking witch hunt.

As for "The same strategy of exclusion that the currently use with OWA, probably one of the biggest web apps in use in business.  Or hotmail."

I just used Safari on my Mac to connect to and retrieve my email from Hotmail with no messages or problems of any type. I do not use OWA for my corporate email, so I cannot test that. I did connect to www.mesh.com and was able to add a folder and upload a file, but could not add my Mac to the mesh...the only message that I recieved regarding that was "The Live Mesh extender is not currently supported on this device." And then a couple of Coming soon messages for Mobile devices and Macs.

--tayme

@Tayme,

How exactly has MS paid for it?  They weren't broken up.  Their grip on the PC market hasn't remarkably changed.  They still have the profit margins indicative of monopoly pricing power (30% vs. Intel's 17%, Apple's 14%, HP's 7% and Dell's 4%).  

The DOJ gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist and all the fines in they've had to "endure" are made up for in one quarter of monopoly-enhanced profiteering.

I hope they are a more ethical company now then before, but the proof is in the pudding.

@jp - How exactly has MS paid for it?"

You answered your own question. What do you want them to do? Voluntarily pay fines that were not levied? Not only did they pay the fines that were levied, but they also paid many class action lawsuits in various states for things like somebody deciding that we paid too much for MS software....I am sorry, but in my opinion, those kind of suits are frivolous at best and socialist at worst.  

Come on, you are better than lowering yourself to the level of basing your arguments on fanboy statements that have been floating around on the net for years. you did not  respond to the part of my post regarding the actual testing of your claims that I did, proving that your post was incorrect.

I realize that you are a fan of Apple, and that is fine...but over the last week, you have let Paul do exactly what he is attempting to do with his posts...egg you on. You might consider ignoring him for a while...see if that changes anything.

--tayme

@johnpapola

"They still have the profit margins indicative of monopoly pricing power (30% vs. Intel's 17%, Apple's 14%, HP's 7% and Dell's 4%). "

Gee, there's a higher profit margin in software.

Now, care to compare Microsoft to somebody actually in the same business before trying to draw conclusions from comparing kiwi and bananas?

@johnpapola

"How can you possibly deny this? "

Deny that offering companies the option of buying a license that immunizes them from potential patent litigation for using software that violates patents is FUD?

Of course I can. That's standard procedure in this industry. For example, Microsoft paid Apple a huge fee to buy exactly that kind of contract. And Apple paid Microsoft fees for the same thing.

Now, when Apple said to Microsoft "we're preparing to file patent suits against you but are willing to negotiate a licensing deal" was that FUD?

Either both are (and all the licensing deals in the industry are) or neither of them are.

But, then, you probably think that all the code in Linux was independently developed by unemployed devs who had never seen the equivalent commercial source code while working in their parents' basements at night.

I hate to break it to you but a fair number of chunks of code in Linux had already been shown to be commercial code "donated" by developers who decided the code they had access to at work would be really useful in Linux. When found, that code is generally removed to avoid just such lawsuits.

@mikegalos@msn.com

Look we get it. For you, Apple is the worst company there is. The IE 7 warning dialog on MobileMe is the "canonical" example of FUD, nothing since the heady days of IBM marketing their mainframes even comes close to this dialog. Microsoft has never used FUD. Any examples of MS FUD are actually just a use of facts. Also, Microsoft altruistically offers a way to license all their patents to any user of a competitors product, just in case that competitor violated any MS patents. Nothing to fear if you don't license, Microsoft may or may not sue you. Who doesn't like litigation?

Virtualization, perhaps you have heard of it?

VMWare is the market leader. Finding market share numbers is hard, but a ChangeWave survey puts VMWare's share at 70%, Citrix at 26%, Microsoft at 22%:

www.changewave.com/.../viewalliance.html

Let's assume its close, in the ballpark.

Have you read Microsoft's standing policy on supporting their products in a virtualized environment?

support.microsoft.com/.../897615

If you use a third-party virtualization product with any of their products, you better hope the 3rd-party product was acquired the correct way, you have MS Premier support, or you could be on your own. Read what VMWare has to post to explain to customers if running a Microsoft product in their products is supported:

www.vmware.com/.../ms_support_statement.html

Let's say I am a company looking to virtualize. I think VMWare, and I consider MS because I have a lot of MS server product. Why is support important? It's ITs safety net, their insurance policy. How is Microsoft's 3rd-party virtualization support FUD?

F - If we have a problem with SharePoint, you mean we might not be supported? Well, how did we acquire VMWare? Do we have vendor or MS Premier support agreements in place?

U - Let's say we try to get support from Microsoft, you mean I am most likely going to have to build either another virtualization environment using Microsoft VM software or a *physical* environment to prove it's their stuff and not VMWare?

D - Wow this sounds like a lot of work. What if we went with MS VM products? You mean we just call MS? Why are we even considering VMWare? If the SharePoint cluster goes down at 3 AM, you want to be building a physical environment to prove to MS its that product instead of VMWare?

So the volume virtualization server product, VMWare, gets worse support, and maybe no support, compared to Microsoft's fully supported 3rd place virtualization products.

Now before you Hulk out and say Apple blah, blah, blah, save it. The only reason I have continued to answer you was to try and educate you on how absurd your claim that MS does not use FUD is. I know very well Apple's business model and their current virtualization position, and at least on the latter, the situation sucks.

Microsoft's 3rd party virtualization story is insanely good. Sorry. Compare it to the supported statements on VMWare or any other virtualization engine.

If you are putting together a large virtualization system you DO have to do prep for it. It is NOT a trivial thing and requires a lot of planning no matter who you are using. The fact that it's usually easy doesn't mean you don't have to update all the normal server side stuff like backup plans, scaling plans, load balancing, geolocation, etc. (You know, the stuff Apple blew in the iPhone 3G launch)

You do also have to check your licenses. Virtualization isn't a license to bootleg. Or do you think Apple wouldn't care if you bought one copy of OS X and installed it on 300 VMs on 100 clone servers?

@ Murdocdv:

You are interpreting the incidents according to your predisposed biases. How about this? Microsoft has every right to dictate how you use their products. It is VMWare that was created to run a host of guest OSs. NOT the other way around. MS did not create their server OS to run on VMWare. [Parallel this with the Apple creating MobileMe to run on Windows PCs, consequently on its most popular browser - IE.]

You mean to say that the burden of support falls completely on MS if you ran one of their products on a third-party platform not stated as one of prime platforms of the said MS product?

You say MS is mistaken in warning people to make sure their virtualization product was obtained legally [thereby precluding the possibility of having to support pirated, hacked, buggy virtualization software which are popular in EMEA and Asia-Pac markets] and that MSFT's investment in training its support staff on third-party virtualization technologies [a secondary deployment platform at the moment] is paid for by increased support license cost?

Every story has its other side, my friend.

@Mike,

"Now, care to compare Microsoft to somebody actually in the same business before trying to draw conclusions from comparing kiwi and bananas?"

You're not all wrong there. Still, show me another large operating system and office suite company and I'll show you someone in the "Same Business".  Oh wait.  There are none.  Hence the whole monopoly thing.  Apple is the closest thing on the OS front and their business model makes comparisons to Microsoft messy.  Intel is a solid comparison given it's market position, but their price competition with AMD does push down margins.

So... here's a few other firms:

Microsoft 29.3%

Adobe 23%

Oracle 24.6%

IBM 10.6%

Red Hat 14.7%

Intuit 16.6%

SAP 18.9%

So software does have higher margins that hardware, which makes sense, but Microsoft's margins are by far the highest.  And if you actually were to strip away the non-Windows and Office expenses and income, Microsoft's monopoly money from those two (or you could say three with Windows Server if you want) main products is staggering.

As for your pathetic excuse for a dodge regarding Microsoft's patent FUD... you lose.  You lose the rational debate game.  Since when is extortion "standard procedure".  This is straight out of the Mob's playbook.  "Pay us, or something bad might happen to you".  This is not the kind of tactic that the leader of the industry should be doing.  They are the leader.  They have the monopoly power.  This is why Judge Penfield-Jackson concluded that Microsoft "behaved more like a thug in its dealings with competitors and customers".  Read his finding of fact and educate yourself about the company you seem to blindly adore.

Now, Apple was ALREADY IN LITIGATION with Microsoft regarding Microsoft's proven theft of QuickTime code inside Video For Windows.  That wasn't some unsubstantiated, vague FUD.  That was a real suit with specific code.  Jobs, being smart and not an ideologue, believed Microsoft was better as a friend than foe and did the deal with them.  The $150 Million chump-change was all ceremony for the press.  This isn't an example with any relevance or use and if you knew the history, you'd know that. Google "Apple sues Microsoft over QuickTime".  Most honest people believe that Apple had slam dunk case and that the 150 million (which was in non-voting stock and ultimately made microsoft more cash than had they kept the money in it's own stock) was a great deal for MS.

So... you've rebutted nothing.  You have cemented that you're too much of a hard-head apologist zealot to admit the sky is blue if a mac user points it out, which is sad.  Microsoft's linux patent posturing was FUD.  Simply google "Microsoft linux patent FUD" to have your denials crushed by reality and simple, basic research.

And as for your own completely unsubstantiated allegations regarding linux... that's what they are.  Allegations.  Last time I check, we work in an "innocent until proven guilty" based system in the US.

It's really very sad when a person like yourself can't find the courage to admit when they're wrong and agree on debate built on intellectual honesty instead of mud-slinging lies and slander.

FUD is in Microsoft's DNA.  It goes back to their early days of trolling the trade shows for what looked like a hot new software product and then issuing a paper release that they too had a product just like it "on the way" when no work had even begun and sometime no work would ever begin... just to hurt these potential competitors and chill the market for innovation by anyone else.

This is just history.  Learn it.  Apple's ain't rosie either in different respects.  But Microsoft's past sins fill books and your denial is sad.

@Johnpapola yet again

IBM and Red Hat are primarily in the consulting and services business these days, hence the lower return.

Again, you come up with lots of personal attacks but little to no data.

As for learning history, I've been in the PC business since the 1970s and lived most of that history. You, on the other hand, seem to get your opinions from listening to an echo chamber that just reinforces your misimpressions and shut out anyone who disagrees with those pre-formed opinions.

Again, a fact or two would be nice.

@ "Factless John"

"It goes back to their early days of trolling the trade shows for what looked like a hot new software product and then issuing a paper release that they too had a product just like it "on the way" when no work had even begun and sometime no work would ever begin... just to hurt these potential competitors and chill the market for innovation by anyone else."

Actually, that was VisiCorp who did that with their VisiOn product and it's the definition not of FUD but of Vaporware. It was Mark Ursino who coined the phrase describing VisiCorp's VisiOn "product" for that reason.

You see, John, FUD and other words have actual meaning and not just "It's bad so I'll call somebody I don't like guilty of it"

@Mike,

Classic partisan hack response.  Ignore the core point and attack on the fringes.  No real rebuttal at all.

It's clear that Microsoft's linux patent claims were deemed FUD by the entire industry.  That you are denying that pretty much destroys the credibility you need to call Apple out on the same charge.  There's no harm in admitting that FUD was and is a tool in Microsoft's arsenal.  Your denial of it just makes you look like a shill.  

So don't go lecturing about the definition of terms like FUD when you clearly apply them selectively (only to Apple).

Pingback from  iPhoneKing    &raquo; Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

@Johnpapola

No, the Microsoft claims were deemed questionable by the entire OSS community. Not "the entire industry"

I suspect you're reading choices make that mistake as well.

As I said, unless you think Linux was developed in a clean room, it's ludicrous to think they didn't infringe on MS patents.

Now, do you think the Linux vendors who paid license fees should be able to sell their product because their license indemnifies their customers as opposed to the distros that are taking a gamble that Linux code is totally pure?

What about Apple?

What about Microsoft?

And, again, it isn't FUD just because you don't like it.

Pingback from  iPhoneKing    &raquo; Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

It's FUD because it was vague and unsubstantiated.  They should have shown the code.  Provide the proof and then accept the licensing fees.  By not demonstrating where linux violates their patents, Microsoft was pulling a SCO (who I believe they helped keep alive with investment while their ludicrous suit dragged along).

You are building an accusation with no proof.  I'm not saying that linux doesn't violate the patents.  It very well may.  I'm calling FUD for what it is.  Spreading FEAR among Linux customers about liability, uncertainty about the extent of the problem and DOUBT about the viability of Linux.  

Had they simply demonstrated the patent breaches, you'd be right. Instead, you're contributing nothing but unsubstantiated allegations based on assumptions.  I don't know why you think that's reasonable, because it isn't.

@john

It would be FUD if it was "buy Linux and maybe we'll sue oneday and there's nothing you can do about it"

What it was, instead, was "We're offering the same patent indemnity licensing that we offer to Apple and every other OS vendor and that we pay to other vendors"

Of course, when Linux users are told they have to actually respect patent rights, they seem get a bit huffy.

Now, some Linux distributions did license and their users are no more at risk than Apple users are. (Or than Windows users are) because their vendor licensed the technology rather than just whining about how unfair it is that when they get caught stealing they're not just told, "oh, it's ok in your case"

Thanks for putting this under the spotlight, Paul. I am outraged that there isn't a free tool to sync calendar on the iPhone.

I left a request at apple and hope others that are frustrated will do the same. If they get enough pressure they may rethink this when iTunes 7.8 comes out.

Here's the link:

www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html

Pingback from  Best Iphone 4 You  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it&#39;s not &#39;Exchange for &#8230;

Pingback from  Best Iphone 2 U  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster &#8230;

Pingback from  Free Iphone 2 U  &raquo; Blog Archive   &raquo; Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster &#8230;

Pingback from  One Year And Counting &raquo; MobileMe Takes A Bashing

Pingback from  Assignment 1 &laquo; Chapter 1