Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 73 of 73
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunkmagic
    In short the answer is NO! I doubt M$ will allow this core upgrade feature in WM05 to be lisenced to competitors at this point. This one will be for WM lisencees only imo...
    This is simply incorrect and uninformed.

    First, Windows Mobile devices have already had an Always Up To Date (AUTD) functionality since the release of Exchange 2003. The only "upgrade feature" of it, is the methodology...

    "AUTD is a notification feature in Exchange Server 2003 that improves the user experience with a Pocket PC. This feature is available only on Pocket PC Phone Edition devices or Smartphones that are running Windows Mobile 2003 or Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition. By default, AUTD is installed with Exchange Server 2003. When a new item is delivered to a user's Exchange Server mailbox, a notification message is sent to the user's device. The device then performs synchronization in the background so that the most current Exchange Server information is available."
    {NOTE: That's the old info; not the new...}

    The "reserved" new functionality is most likely going to revolve around the "local wipe/remote wipe," etc. features. But "basic" AUTD will be available to ALL devices. (Pending, of course, licensee programming of the upgrade features into their device firmware.)
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    This really sounds like FUD to me. I think Microsoft has done an excellent job of getting out a tremendous amount of info on the new features, but people are a little slow in actually reading and digesting them.

    http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/ar...07/406035.aspx

    The necessary components are pretty clear: Exchange SP2; Messaging & Security Feature Pack for Windows Mobile 5.0; and for the licensees like Palm/Nokia/etc, their own programming feature updates.

    If you have heard something more, you should be specific, as Microsoft has been VERY specific:
    Unfortunately, due to NDA, I can't be any more specific. The MSFP, from research I have seen, MAY (note, I say MAY) require some additional application support to enable certain features. Add on top of that that enterprises are starting look for more than messaging, such as back-office data access, and free suddenly becomes not so free.

    Check out the Exchange Blog for more info, like this: "SP2 is imminent, and Im very excited about this. We are currently running almost all of Microsoft (102,000 mailboxes) on SP2 (with the exception of 1400 people currently running Exchange 12)" http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/ar...06/405993.aspx
    I have read that and it doesn't make my initial thoughts any different. The fact that MSFT is eating their own dogfood tells me nothing. That would be like saying "We at Good Technology are very excited about GoodLink since we run it internally"



    It is really pretty late to call people running Exchange 2003 "early adopters", don't you think? My organization has been running it for more than a year. On Friday evening, we upgraded from Standard to Enterprise version (due to impending store size shutdown; we couldn't wait for SP2 to bump our store size). Amazingly, it took less than 3 hours.
    The fact that less than 30% of all the Exchange Servers are actually running 2003 tells me it is NOT too late to say that. Add on top of that a SP releases are not initially received very well by the Exchange community. Sure, they will eventually, but I think it is still 12-18 months before EAS becomes a major player in the wireless messaging space.

    What I can tell you is that the ONLY reason someone should still be running an earlier version of Exchange is MONEY. If they cannot afford the software, then none of this discussion applies to them (but then Goodlink/BES really wouldn't either).
    I beg to differ. While cost is an issue in some cases, others include no need to update, larger deployments where the cost (tangible and intangible) is not worth the feature enhancements. Exchange ActiveSync was initially designed as feature to entice people to upgrade to 2003. Then, MSFT realized (similar the the IE days) that this wireless thing may actually have a market, hence the upgrade to ActiveSync.
    Oh, and I think some third-party apps (like DataViz's RoadSync) will specifically support Treo 600s using Exchange ActiveSync (even before SP2 comes out). http://www.dataviz.com/solutions/ent...d_devices.html

    So that too is a misstatement, and just a little more FUD on the fire...
    The fact that DataViz will specifically support Treo 600's has nothing to do with the fact that ActiveSync DOES not support Treo 600's and MSFP, in it's current iteration, will not either. That is not FUD. It is fact.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    How do you know this? Microsoft says, "Get a sneak preview of the new features and improvements coming in Service Pack 2 (SP2), scheduled for release in the second half of 2005."

    And there appears to be some rumoring growing around September/October to quickly follow the Mobile 5 devices...

    And while you call the product "immature" and say it "won't be a viable enterprise solution for awhile", I find the fact that it is ALREADY IN PRODUCTION IN AN ENTERPRISE to be somewhat contradictory: "We are currently running almost all of Microsoft (102,000 mailboxes) on SP2 (with the exception of 1400 people currently running Exchange 12)"

    What is growing increasingly interesting to me is that while Microsoft has done one of its BEST jobs of getting a ton of info out in a matter of hours and days following the announcement, so many people are bending over backward to make seemingly false or uninformed contradictory statements to already published info...
    We have seen the product and we have gone against the new version in large accounts. As I stated, due to NDA, I can't go into detail, however, given MSFT's history of announcing features prior to release and then not having them (see Longhorn), I would take anything that comes from the marketing machine in Redmond with a grain of salt.

    So what if MSFT is running it. The product isn't shipping. It is, therefore, immature. I personally am not concerned with MSFT entering this market. Their history tells me that, eventually yes, they will be a force to contend with. However, a year to a year and a half out before that becomes a reality. By that time, we, along with others such as Intellisync, Visto and even RIM, will still be ahead of them.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Unfortunately, due to NDA, I can't be any more specific. The MSFP, from research I have seen, MAY (note, I say MAY) require some additional application support to enable certain features. Add on top of that that enterprises are starting look for more than messaging, such as back-office data access, and free suddenly becomes not so free.
    Yeah, but to prove you were under an NDA, you'd have to kill me...the fake NDA claim gets really old, you know. No one can prove it one way or the other, but it gives you a nice little "legit" sheen, right? All I know is that I would think a lawyer from Microsoft could write an NDA that cut down on your disparaging comments of your partner's products (especially when you misrepresent their own statements.) What you actually said earlier was that SP2 would NOT support pushed email by itself...that was the FUD. And it still is--even now you try to change the topic to something other than pushed email...


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    I have read that and it doesn't make my initial thoughts any different. The fact that MSFT is eating their own dogfood tells me nothing. That would be like saying "We at Good Technology are very excited about GoodLink since we run it internally"
    Disparaging them doesn't change the actual fact: They are running 100 THOUSAND mailboxes on SP2! (And have been for a while.) It is NOT smoke and mirrors, and it is not a "doesn't exist yet" announcement. That's called PROVING your product. Now no doubt you have sold products to customers that you would never dream of running internally, but that is NOT Microsoft's way.


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    The fact that less than 30% of all the Exchange Servers are actually running 2003 tells me it is NOT too late to say that. Add on top of that a SP releases are not initially received very well by the Exchange community. Sure, they will eventually, but I think it is still 12-18 months before EAS becomes a major player in the wireless messaging space.
    Conservatively speaking, there are more than 20 million mailboxes running on Exchange 2003 NOW. And that number is estimated to grow to 40 million PLUS by the end of the year. If, to you, that is still just the "early adopters", so be it; I realize that it is just a drop in your customer bucket...


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    I beg to differ. While cost is an issue in some cases, others include no need to update, larger deployments where the cost (tangible and intangible) is not worth the feature enhancements. Exchange ActiveSync was initially designed as feature to entice people to upgrade to 2003. Then, MSFT realized (similar the the IE days) that this wireless thing may actually have a market, hence the upgrade to ActiveSync.
    Change is indeed hard, look at your own product. The only people who disparage Exchange 2003 are those with a vested interest in discouraging users from the upgrade. No doubt your own organization has not yet made the move, huh?


    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    The fact that DataViz will specifically support Treo 600's has nothing to do with the fact that ActiveSync DOES not support Treo 600's and MSFP, in it's current iteration, will not either. That is not FUD. It is fact.
    I can only assume you are saying that the Treo 600 will be unable to receive "push" email EXCEPT via your product (or BES)? That is FUD. After all, neither the Treo 600 nor the 650 "natively" support your application, do they?
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    We have seen the product and we have gone against the new version in large accounts. As I stated, due to NDA, I can't go into detail, however, given MSFT's history of announcing features prior to release and then not having them (see Longhorn), I would take anything that comes from the marketing machine in Redmond with a grain of salt.

    So what if MSFT is running it. The product isn't shipping. It is, therefore, immature. I personally am not concerned with MSFT entering this market. Their history tells me that, eventually yes, they will be a force to contend with. However, a year to a year and a half out before that becomes a reality. By that time, we, along with others such as Intellisync, Visto and even RIM, will still be ahead of them.
    Okay, first you say that you have "gone against the new version in large accounts" and then you say "The product isn't shipping"...it must be tough to get beaten by an unshipped product.

    And history is littered with the memory of all those "not concerned" with Microsoft's entry into their market. Continue to spread your FUD.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Yeah, but to prove you were under an NDA, you'd have to kill me...the fake NDA claim gets really old, you know. No one can prove it one way or the other, but it gives you a nice little "legit" sheen, right? All I know is that I would think a lawyer from Microsoft could write an NDA that cut down on your disparaging comments of your partner's products (especially when you misrepresent their own statements.) What you actually said earlier was that SP2 would NOT support pushed email by itself...that was the FUD. And it still is--even now you try to change the topic to something other than pushed email...
    Where did I say that? I never said it wouldn't support push email by itself. I quoted an article that explained their push method. You can stop word spinning any time now to try and make your point. You think what you want about "fake NDA" claim, but it is true. All of my remarks, which I have said, are conjecture based on preliminary studies of the product. I have stated nothing as fact, your vehament defense notwithstanding.

    Disparaging them doesn't change the actual fact: They are running 100 THOUSAND mailboxes on SP2! (And have been for a while.) It is NOT smoke and mirrors, and it is not a "doesn't exist yet" announcement. That's called PROVING your product. Now no doubt you have sold products to customers that you would never dream of running internally, but that is NOT Microsoft's way.
    Don't you think that if MSFT had the product running in a large deployment outside of Redmond, there would be quotes from Beta customers claiming the glory of the product. That IS Microsoft's way.

    Conservatively speaking, there are more than 20 million mailboxes running on Exchange 2003 NOW. And that number is estimated to grow to 40 million PLUS by the end of the year. If, to you, that is still just the "early adopters", so be it; I realize that it is just a drop in your customer bucket...
    Again, you are taking the term "early adopters" out of context. The fact is that 2003 has taken much longer for adoption than MSFT would like. 20 million out of over 120 million Exchange seats worldwide is still a small percentage. My comments were the acceptance rate of SP releases and patches, not Exchange as a whole.
    Change is indeed hard, look at your own product. The only people who disparage Exchange 2003 are those with a vested interest in discouraging users from the upgrade. No doubt your own organization has not yet made the move, huh?
    Let's see. We support 5.5, 2000 and 2003. Not discouraging people to upgrade at all. Actually, I personally would rather people upgrade to 2003 as some of the enhancements make installation of our product that much easier.

    I can only assume you are saying that the Treo 600 will be unable to receive "push" email EXCEPT via your product (or BES)? That is FUD. After all, neither the Treo 600 nor the 650 "natively" support your application, do they?
    Again, your assumptions are incorrect and again, your attempts to put words in my mouth are failing. One, there are plenty of push email products that support the 600. None of the Treo's support BB currently. As for "native support", define native? I would assume you are saying that any third-party application written for an operating system doesn't run "natively" since it isn't integrated into the OS. If that is the case, then you are right, it doesn't run natively.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by delta_baggage
    Okay, first you say that you have "gone against the new version in large accounts" and then you say "The product isn't shipping"...it must be tough to get beaten by an unshipped product.

    And history is littered with the memory of all those "not concerned" with Microsoft's entry into their market. Continue to spread your FUD.
    Yup. The product isn't shipping, however, does that mean it doesn't exist? Of course not. You continue to point to the deployment of SP2 at Microsoft as a sticking point for the viability of the product. You must be under the assumption that in a competitive situation for a large account (see GolfBallMan's Post post) that MSFT won't show a pre-release product.

    Also, I have said over and over that I am not currently concerned with MSFT in the wireless messaging space. I also said
    Quote Originally Posted by goodguy
    Their history tells me that, eventually yes, they will be a force to contend with. However, a year to a year and a half out before that becomes a reality.
    The product isn't due until 4th quarter, which is 3 to 5 months, depending on release, assuming (which with MSFT, is a major assumption) it is released on scheduled. that makes 12-18 months 9-15 months, which in this industry, as I am sure you are aware, is a very long time. You are correct, the world is littered with folks not concerned with MSFT's entry into market. Our leadership team has a direct connection to this (Netscape), so you can be sure we are very familiar with that. However, my opinion is that it will be at least a year before I will have major concerns.
  8. #68  
    Delta -

    Sound like your assumming every company runs exchange and every company is going to flock to 2003 for SP2. Granted SP2 will be a ton better (atleast from what microsoft is telling me) than ActiveSyncs current state but microsofts true motive is push exchange 2003 upgrades, pocketpc and smartphones. It will do the basics but MS still needs middleware guys to help address their shortfalls and other messaging applications.

    Lets look at history: MS Media Center & Tivo - yeah media center is free, but you don't see people chucking their Tivo's to flock over to it. MS Money & Intuit - hell MS tried to take them out as well and now Intuit is strong as ever. MSN vs AOL -- what a joke that was/is. MSN Search vs Google - Google $300+. Xbox vs PS2 -- good job here but PS2 is still strong. Explorer vs Netscape - it took a few years but MS dominates the desktop. Which leads us to today -- MS Exchange SP2 and the target is Blackberry.

    MS will ship a product and it will be better than its current offerening. However they are stalling the market and making people think twice...hmm sounds familiar...never seen microsoft do that before. Middleware players will benefit from MS marketing efforts and MS's product gaps.

    If you think MS is going to win and activesync is the endall of all solutions...Why in gods name are you using a Treo? MS told me pocketpc was better...I saw it in a press release they had.
  9. #69  
    Personally, I have to admit I felt like GoodGuy has been throwing in a little FUD and simply trying to use this forum to promote his product. Not that I blame him, but I do feel it's kind of a grey area to use these forums to promote your own product. Of course, there's also the argument that he's just defending his product.

    However, saying A) that SP2 is an immature product is strictly an assumption. I for one have noticed a different MS lately that has been better at testing and proving products before they come out (but I still don't want them on my PDA!...LOL) You cannot say it's immature until you have implemented it yourself.
    B) stating your opinion that it may require a third party product is basically the definition of FUD. You're throwing unproven (and probably false) remarks into the mix that might lead others to question the feasability of this solution.

    While I don't agree with everything baggage has said, I do agree with the general attitude of it.
    Palm III -> Palm Vx -> Clie T615c -> Clie T665c -> Tungsten T|3 -> Treo 650 -> Trew 700W (for a few days) -> XV6700 -> Moto Q
    http://geckotek.blogspot.com
  10. #70  
    Geckotek..

    You are 100% correct regarding my statement of 3rd party requirements. The clarification should be there may be a need for another MSFT application, but the fact that it is, at this point, 100% conjecture, does make it FUD and this is not the place for that and I apologize to baggage and others regarding that. As for the immaturity of the product, I stand by that statement being that it hasn't been released outisde of Redmond (as far as has been publicized) and that it is a major change to the current iteration of EAS. This, by definition, is an immature product. The fact tht MSFT is better at currently testing and proving products prior to release has no bearing on the fact that it will be, basically, a brand new product upon release.

    However, I don't see in the conversation as it relates to SP2 where I have said use GoodLink instead or compared the SP2 release to GoodLink. GoodLink was brought up by another poster and I answered the question. What started the entire "for msft vs against msft" discussion was a link I posted that explains how MSFT is explaining how SP2 upgrade will work, to which the whole FUD accusation came.

    Probably the best bet here is for me to bow out of this thread as the overtone of bias, be it real or imagined, is going to be felt.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodGuy
    Where did I say that? I never said it wouldn't support push email by itself....
    Really? Take a look at Post #56 in this thread. Here's what you said:

    "Funny thing is, nrosser, it may NOT be that easy. We are hearing some interesting things that may be required outside of the SP2 upgrade for pushed email...."

    So, I personally think you DID say just that. And that is, again, FUD.
  12. #72  
    Where does that say it doesn't support push email? I said that there may some additional things required, to which, I retracted that statement in my last post. Besides, it has been more than me saying these things:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060601526.html

    http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6245...ml?tag=nl.e501

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1826676,00.asp

    With that, I am pulling myself from this thread.
    Last edited by GoodGuy; 06/13/2005 at 01:53 PM.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by GolfBallMan
    Delta -

    Sound like your assumming every company runs exchange and every company is going to flock to 2003 for SP2. Granted SP2 will be a ton better (atleast from what microsoft is telling me) than ActiveSyncs current state but microsofts true motive is push exchange 2003 upgrades, pocketpc and smartphones. It will do the basics but MS still needs middleware guys to help address their shortfalls and other messaging applications....
    Actually, I *was* assuming that this thread/discussion was about those companies that specifically wanted/needed mobile access to their email/calendar/contacts/tasks data. Further that this thread/discussion was about Microsoft's just announced approach to providing this access in a new/novel always-up-to-date (AUTD) manner.

    When I view it in that manner, then there are only a few choices, and features/costs are the relevant differentiators...

    From the intelligence that I've read, it is my understanding that the Microsoft decision has been to subsume the Mobile Division's goals into the larger goal of, just as you say, push Exchange 2003 uptakes. That is why Exchange Activesync was already licensed, and why, now, it is being enhanced.

    Absolutely, Microsoft will still need Middleware guys for a while, but NOT for push PIM data--only for vertical implementations of other Corporate data access.

    Quote Originally Posted by GolfBallMan
    MS will ship a product and it will be better than its current offerening. However they are stalling the market and making people think twice...hmm sounds familiar...never seen microsoft do that before. Middleware players will benefit from MS marketing efforts and MS's product gaps.
    Stalling the market? Stalling the market would have been to make this announcement last December. Instead, they have announced in June a release scheduled for the second half of this year. Included in the information they have released about the product is the following:

    "What do the mobile operators think about all this? Good question. An end-to-end prototype of this solution was built in early 2004, and the next year was spent in trials with mobile operators all over the world, taking their feedback and addressing their concerns."

    Again, I think if people wish to disparage Microsoft, they have every right, and even a few justifications, to do so--just do it straight up, okay? Don't FUD everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by GolfBallMan
    If you think MS is going to win and activesync is the endall of all solutions...Why in gods name are you using a Treo? MS told me pocketpc was better...I saw it in a press release they had.
    Wow, I thought you knew: The current AUTD method of PocketPC devices rely on a text messaging methodology that we found "uncompelling," to say the least. We were specifically testing the "non-MS" Exchange ActiveSync options, like the Treo (and when available, RoadSync and Nokia/Symbian, etc.) in order to evaluate our future decisions. (Doesn't everyone do that?)
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions