[hparsons]

Only after reading this post did I realize that it doesn't sync with a cord using some type of desktop software. My number one priority in a smartphone is the ability to sync my work Outlook with my home Outlook easily. If the Pre doesn't have this capability, I have to rethink switching carriers mid-plan for a phone that may not be able to do this easily. I have not made a decision yet, but felt like people were saying that if what I need in a phone is not there, then I should keep what I have or look for a different phone.

OK, that does sound a little meatier; however, I think you've given up the quest way too early.

First of all, rethink what you need. Don't think in terms of "how do I get there", but rather "Where do I need to get to?" (BTW, I work in the IT industry, I have to remind people of this all the time)

So, it sounds to me like where you really want to get to is tat you have your "work Outlook" and "home Outlook" on the same device. Synchronizing is simply the mechanism to get that done. Would you be as happy if the device does this without synchronizing?

That's where the questions need to begin...

Sorry again, I was only wanting to find out for sure how I would accomplish what I need to with the Pre without using a web based system, like Google or Yahoo.

Don't think of Google and Yahoo being the only "web based system" ... as a matter of fact, don't even think of the cloud as web based. Web based systems are part of it, but not the definition of the cloud.

Also, don't assume that if an perfect solution doesn't exist for you on day 1, that it won't soon after that.

In other words - keep reading and watching.

[GreenHex]

You realize that it is the user that makes the choice to create and use facebook and google and yahoo et al accounts, right?

If the user doesn't want to share their data with the free services listed above (and others), they...wait for it...don't have to.

There are plenty of paid, secure, highly private cloud services one can utilize.

Here's a nice copy of Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 you can use to set up your own cloud from home. It might be expensive, but privacy's worth it, right? It's still a cloud though.

I hadn't realized that Microsoft Exchange (Server 2007) had anything to do with the cloud. I always believed the cloud was a computing + service + charging paradigm that's different than anything that we have seen up to now.

It' not a simple question of choice.... as we are free to chop-off our hands or do something equally horrid.

[keri2000]

In other words - keep reading and watching.

point taken. I will reserve any judgments until the phone is released and I can see first hand what it is capable of. I am still excited to see it in action.

[hypocaffeinemia]

I hadn't realized that Microsoft Exchange (Server 2007) had anything to do with the cloud. I always believed the cloud was a computing + service + charging paradigm that's different than anything that we have seen up to now.

It' not a simple question of choice.... as we are free to chop-off our hands or do something equally horrid.

"The cloud" is a fairly meaningless term like "Web 2.0".

Typically "cloud" refers to services you don't have access to other than online, like google, but them sending data from their server to your phone is not really any different from your work's exchange server sending data to your phone.

What makes the Pre different is the fact it accesses multiple sources and combines it seamlessly. I've been using so-called "cloud" services on my windows mobile phone for years.

[hparsons]

...
I always believed the cloud was a computing + service + charging paradigm that's different than anything that we have seen up to now.
...

Sorry, you've simply misunderstood. The cloud has nothing to do with charging systems, and little to do with service (if we're talking about wireless service plans).

This is from Wikipedia.
The term cloud is used as a metaphor for the Internet, based on how the Internet is depicted in computer network diagrams, and is an abstraction for the complex infrastructure it conceals.

And yes, a publicly accessible Exchange server is part of the cloud.

[GreenHex]

Sorry, you've simply misunderstood. The cloud has nothing to do with charging systems, and little to do with service (if we're talking about wireless service plans)

hparsons... My question was more rhetorical (and a thin attempt at sarcasm, if you will). I did read the Wikipedia entry before posting.

I'm sure "service" and "charging" have nothing to do with mobile/ wireless service plans. There is a section on "Economics" in the Wikipedia entry.

---
From the Wikipedia entry:

Cloud infrastructure, such as Infrastructure as a service, is the delivery of computer infrastructure, typically a platform virtualization environment, as a service.

A cloud platform, such as Platform as a service, the delivery of a computing platform, and/or solution stack as a service, facilitates deployment of applications without the cost and complexity of buying and managing the underlying hardware and software layers.

A cloud service includes "products, services and solutions that are delivered and consumed in real-time over the Internet"

Cloud storage involves the delivery of data storage as a service, including database-like services, often billed on a utility computing basis...

[jbg7474]

I am really starting to hate the term "cloud." I think it is over-used and imprecise.

[hparsons]

hparsons... My question was more rhetorical (and a thin attempt as sarcasm, if you will). I did read the Wikipedia entry before posting.
...

I'm a little confused by your question about Exchange then. Exchange has provided both web based access to mailboxes, and Active Sync (over the net) for quite some time. Both are definitely "cloud" functions.

[GreenHex]

I'm a little confused by your question about Exchange then. Exchange has provided both web based access to mailboxes, and Active Sync (over the net) for quite some time. Both are definitely "cloud" functions.

The thing is, imagine Exchange and the "service" it provides - it's existed for years and years... same for things like Hotmail, Gmail, Facebook, or whatever. Now, cloud computing is something more than that... the question is, "What?" Otherwise there would be no need to invent a new paradigm, correct?

The problem is, the definitions of cloud computing (and utility, grid etc.) and many other new concepts are evolving. Over time, some definitions and terms will be discarded and other terms recast to capture accurately the essence of what they actually mean.

[hparsons]

The thing is, imagine Exchange and the "service" it provides - it's existed for years and years... same for things like Hotmail, Gmail, Facebook, or whatever. Now, cloud computing is something more than that... the question is, "What?" Otherwise there would be no need to invent a new paradigm, correct?

The problem is, the definitions of cloud computing (and utility, grid etc.) and many other new concepts are evolving. Over time, some definitions and terms will be discarded and other terms recast to capture accurately the essence of what they actually mean.

Hotmail, Gmail, Facebook have all been part of the cloud since they started. They were all internet based and accessed systems.

Exchange originally offered calendering, email, contacts, etc; however, it required a dedicated client to access those services (Outlook).

When they added the web client, Exchange became part of the cloud. Active Sync (over the network) added to that.

There are folks that never even bother using the standard client (Outlook), and instead use web browsers, smart phones, etc to access their Exchange data.

Dat's da cloud (or part of it).

[Jeff DLB]

I always believed the cloud was a computing + service + charging paradigm that's different than anything that we have seen up to now.

Sorry, you've simply misunderstood.

I think GreenHex is correct, especially from the point of view of service providers (as opposed to customers like us). For them, the difference between hosting services in the cloud vs hosting them on-site is like the difference between using electricity from the power company vs having your own power plant on the premises.

Let me explain. Suppose you start a new service like Facebook or YouTube or Flickr. You need to be able to handle demand. The more popular your site gets, the more you need to buy racks full of servers to put in air-conditioned rooms with lots of bandwidth and redundant power systems tended 24/7/365 by sysadmins who need salaries and pizza. Maybe you even need multiple rooms at different parts of the country or the world to handle local demand. You need to maintain enough infrastructure to handle your peak load, and then have that infrastructure sit idle at times of low load. This is expensive and difficult, and means you must spend a lot of time focusing on the hardware rather than on your actual business.

Instead of doing this, you can use the cloud and rent storage, bandwidth and computing power as needed from Google or Amazon Web Services or others. You keep the master copy of your data and your test & development servers, but you let the virtual service provider handle all the public traffic. If demand is high, more servers and bandwidth can be allocated, in different parts of the planet. If you have more data to store, more disk space can be allocated. The cloud servers can be located in places where real estate is cheap instead of in your building. You get billed by the virtual service provider for resources used, and you can concentrate on running your business.

That's the promise, at any rate. I don't think in practice it's quite there yet, especially automatically scaling up complex applications based on demand. I do believe that ultimately the full advent of cloud computing will be like the industrial-age transition from having a steam engine in your factory that used a system of pulleys and belts to distribute energy to machines on the shop floor, and replacing all that with machines that each have their own electric motor and plug into the wall.

[Gekko]

any thoughts as to which is "better" to use as your email provide? your ISP (ex Comcast) OR a "Cloud" provider such as Gmail or Yahoo?

my initial thoughts -

1. if you use your ISP for email, only one entity "touches" your data - your ISP. if you use Gmail, Yahoo etc. - two do.
2. if you use your ISP for email, your probability of downtime is X. is you use Gmail, Yahoo, etc. your probability of downtime goes up by Y because now you have added another component entity to fail in the mix.

of course, there are other trade offs like services, accessibility etc.

thoughts?

[cardfan]

I've been on comcast for years. I don't use comcast's email anymore and instead stick with gmail. It's just easier.

Also, back in 2008, we had a house fire bad enough to require temporary housing for 4 months or so. Lost my comcast email altogether as i wasn't going to pay for 4 months of comcast service if i wasn't living there. They would not hold my email for me or make it usable. Thankfully i had been using gmail as a backup with all comcast mail autoforwarded to gmail. Now i just use that gmail account.

But anyways, you could move 10min away and lose your email if that ISP doesn't provide service. It's just inconvenient to be tied to using something like that.

[jcunwired]

I don't quite get your logic as to how many entities touch your data, nor that used in computing probability of downtime. Functionally, as an end user, they are identical - your information resides in the cloud until its retrieved and placed on your device/PC.

I have email accounts in my ISP, my own domain, and Google/Yahoo. I've had far more difficulty with uptime of the ISP/domain mail services than I have the public services, and this goes back many years. Nothing is infallible (fortunately - or we IT folks would be asking "would you like fries with that?")

Remember folks that you can receive POP/IMAP mail on the Pre, so if its important to you to receive the same emails on your Pre as you do your home pc you can easily do so.

One thing is for certain - you must grasp the concept of cloud computing and adapt to it when necessary. Its not going away, and more and more providers of service will rely on the cloud. A few whiners are not going to change an entire paradigm, regardless of your personal desires.

[Gekko]

1. each additional touch point in the email process adds an additional vulnerability point in both uptime and privacy/security - in theory.
2. it remains to be seen if the Pre and the Cloud as a solution are ready for prime time yet. i wont and dont have to accept it until it is. the cloud is far from mainstream. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CLOUD IS STILL IN BETA. and go look at the big "BETA" listed above your Gmail, silly.

[asforme]

1. if you use your ISP for email, only one entity "touches" your data - your ISP. if you use Gmail, Yahoo etc. - two do.

No, only one does, the provider (Gmail or Yahoo). As long as you visit the site using https instead of just http, your traffic is encrypted between your computer and the Google or Yahoo servers. Even if you don't, your ISP is delivering the packets to you, but they are not storing or logging the data they deliver. This would be like suggesting that your phone company is recording all of your phone calls. (And if you want to go on the patriot act and whatever, then everyone is recording everything anyway, using your ISP or Google makes no difference)

2. if you use your ISP for email, your probability of downtime is X. is you use Gmail, Yahoo, etc. your probability of downtime goes up by Y because now you have added another component entity to fail in the mix.

Even if you use your ISP, you still have 2 points of failure. The service that delivers your internet access is separate from the ISPs email service. They run on different servers and either one failing will loose you access to your data. You're simply changing your Email server from being google owned to comcast owned (or whoever your ISP is). I have had comcast's web site fail me while trying to pay my bill many times, even though my Internet access was just fine.

Really it makes very little difference, use the service that you think is most user friendly and offers the features you want.

[jcunwired]

1. each additional touch point in the email process adds an additional vulnerability point in both uptime and privacy/security - in theory.
2. it remains to be seen if the Pre and the Cloud as a solution are ready for prime time yet. i wont and dont have to accept it until it is. the cloud is far from mainstream. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CLOUD IS STILL IN BETA. and go look at the big "BETA" listed above your Gmail, silly.

Sorry, but you're wrong. As I and many others have pointed out, we've been using cloud based computing for years - since the beginning of the internet, in fact, way back before there was html and we posted and accessed our information on IRC, BBS and gopher. In fact, every time you read and post information to this forum, you are leveraging the cloud. Do you bank online? Trade stocks perhaps? Uh oh, cloud computing! Got photos on flickr, videos on youtube? I can go all day listing those services you likely use, all of which are examples of cloud computing. Open your mind and realize a whole new world.

Gmail is not the only web based email, silly. Hotmail (another - ready for this? - cloud service) was around for a decade before gmail. Besides, the fact that gmail is still listed as 'beta' is an inside joke at Google, not because it is truly beta.

You are correct in one point - you have a choice what you are willing to accept.

[GreenHex]

The Cloud is not the Internets. Neither is it just a new name for the same old.

It involves innovation in business and innovative new technologies (one of which is universal broadband internet access) to actually work. Some of these technologies, schemas and solution architectures are yet to be invented.

[jcunwired]

The Cloud is not the Internets. Neither is it just a new name for the same old.

It involves innovation in business and innovative new technologies (one of which is universal broadband internet access) to actually work. Some of these technologies, schemas and solution architectures are yet to be invented.

Thanks. See it as you will, but its really both. The cloud has always been there, and we have leveraged it every day.

Since I am in the business of developing those business cases, and the technologies necessary to take cloud computing to another level I consider myself well informed.

[eekinsman]

Let me just say this: I love the cloud. Use the cloud every day. I am really excited that the Pre will leverage the cloud's data in ways that have not been done before, and hopefully in a seamless way that makes me more efficient. However, the Pre is no less ground breaking, no less cloud centric, no less a harbinger of a new paradigm, by allowing its PIM data to sync via cloud or local cable. That the cloud can fail, like yesterday, only highlights the need to have different options. Palm NEEDS to cast a broad net where possible, and this is an issue to many people.