The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

Assignment 1 « Chapter 1

Assignment 1 « Chapter 1 — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 18:40:27 GMT

Pingback from Assignment 1 « Chapter 1

One Year And Counting » MobileMe Takes A Bashing

One Year And Counting » MobileMe Takes A Bashing — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:31:55 GMT

Pingback from One Year And Counting » MobileMe Takes A Bashing

Free Iphone 2 U » Blog Archive » Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster …

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:41:48 GMT

Pingback from Free Iphone 2 U » Blog Archive » Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster …

Best Iphone 2 U » Blog Archive » Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster …

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:17:53 GMT

Pingback from Best Iphone 2 U » Blog Archive » Best Iphone 4 You ?? Blog Archive ?? re: The MobileMe disaster …

Best Iphone 4 You » Blog Archive » re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for …

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:31:43 GMT

Pingback from Best Iphone 4 You » Blog Archive » re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for …

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

mjs42370 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:44:05 GMT

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

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

mikegalos@msn.com — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:57:55 GMT

@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"

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

johnpapola — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:11:11 GMT

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.

iPhoneKing » Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:54:05 GMT

Pingback from iPhoneKing » Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:16:30 GMT

@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.

iPhoneKing » Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:55:53 GMT

Pingback from iPhoneKing » Thurrott???ling MobileMe: Leaked Apple Memo, Poor Windows Experience?

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

johnpapola — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:46:52 GMT

@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).

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:26:56 GMT

@ "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"

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

mikegalos@msn.com — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:17:42 GMT

@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.

re: The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

johnpapola — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:14:49 GMT

@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.